Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a milestone event in the cultural history of New York City. This month, El Museo del Barrio, New York's leading Latino cultural institution, celebrates its 40th Anniversary. There is much to be proud of when we speak of El Museo: the beautiful physical space it now occupies; the extraordinary talent it continues to attract; the superb quality of its collections; and the professionalism and dedication of its staff. But for me what stands out most about El Museo is that it has never stopped growing and evolving. Much like the community in which it makes its home, El Museo continues to reinvent itself for new waves of residents and new generations of New Yorkers.

El Museo del Barrio was founded 40 years ago by Puerto Rican artist and educator Raphael Montailez Ortiz, who gathered together parents, artists, and activists, to address the absence of Puerto Rican and other Latino artists at larger mainstream institutions. Since its founding, El Museo has been dedicated to showcasing Latino culture. Its permanent collection includes over 6,500 objects which span more than 800 years of Latin American, Caribbean, and Latino artistic expression. A wonderfully diverse body of art, this collection includes everything from pre-Columbian Taino artifacts to twentieth-century drawings and paintings, to prints, sculpture, photography and documentary film and video. Located at the corner of Fifth Avenue and E. 104th Street, El Museo is firmly situated on New York's illustrious Museum Mile, but is also far enough uptown to reach into Manhattan's historic El Barrio. Today, more than 100,000 people visit El Museo each year from all backgrounds and walks of life.

On Saturday, October 17th, the museum will hosted an all day celebration and open house to mark the anniversary as well as the opening of El Museo's newly renovated facility. Two new exhibitions will be on display, one of which highlights four decades of El Museo's permanent collection. And to dramatize El Museo's impact on the cultural life of New York City, the Empire State Building was illuminated in the museum's signature mango-yellow color for the entire weekend, so the city as a whole could share in this momentous reopening.

Madam Speaker, from humble beginnings in East Harlem's Puerto Rican community, this landmark of learning and wonder has emerged as a destination for people from all over the world. They come for many reasons: for the history that is taught, for the remarkable work on display, and, not the least of all, people come to El Museo to feel connected--connected to the past and the future of the Latino diaspora in this great international city. El Museo's holdings and exhibitions are a gift to all New Yorkers and to the world, and for this reason I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing the 40th Anniversary of El Museo del Barrio.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this time.

Every so often an issue comes before Congress where I honestly have to admit I scratch my head and say, Do I fully understand what we are talking about here? Because it makes no sense to me.

On every appropriations bill that we see come before the full committee, there was this notion that we couldn't bring folks from Guantanamo here to be prosecuted. Now, I know how dangerous some of these folks may be. I know how dangerous some of these folks are. I was in New York in my city on September 11. I was not here. Many people forget that was primary day in New York. Many people forget that one of the accomplishments, if you will, of the terrorists was to suspend, in the middle of the day, an election that was taking place in New York. They didn't just attack the symbol of our military power. They didn't just attack the symbol of our financial power. They were not just geared towards attacking, and did not get a chance to do it, to attack the symbol of our legislative power, but they disrupted an election, which is perhaps at the center of our strength, our electoral process.

I was there. I saw the pain. I know that they killed a lot of people, but they didn't defeat us. Let's be clear about that. They killed a lot of Americans, but they didn't defeat us, and they will never defeat us unless we begin to run away from who we are as a people and as a Nation. Unless we begin to throw away and turn our back on the Constitution, on what makes us a unique country, then they have a chance to win.

My friend, and we say this on the floor, but he truly is my friend from Kentucky, says, Why would we want to do that? Why would we want to bring them here? Because we are the United States of America. Because we are a great democracy that is not afraid to bring people to justice when they deserve to come to justice. Because we have nothing to hide.

Ironically, on another issue that I discussed with my friend at length over the years, we want nothing to do with Cuba except to use them to hold people there for trial. Why not bring them to New York where they committed their act, the scene of their crime? Why not let the world know in the middle of our pain, in the midst of all of our anguish over September 11, we are big enough and democratic enough to bring people to trial here within our territory. We have nothing to fear.

As far as whether or not there will be Miranda rights involved and whether the people have rights, why not? What is so difficult to understand about that? There is a contradiction in a country that continuously tells the world we are better, and we are; we are more democratic, and we are; we have a better justice system, and we do, and at the same time says but not for these individuals.

Now, if I was making the argument on behalf of the individuals in Guantanamo, we know how many were detained and eventually released because we have, throughout the last few years, nothing to charge them with. It might be that we have to release some and send them back to their countries, but this fear that somehow they are going

to be watching the streets of Washington, D.C., and eating at local restaurants and planting bombs everywhere, these folks will probably be the most guarded people in the history of the world. But we will do ourselves a great disservice if we continue to say that they cannot be brought to the United States for justice.

Why should they be near our community residents was one of the questions asked. I see it differently. Why not see our system in full bloom? Why not allow the world to see and understand that we are not afraid to bring people here to pay for their crimes, to go before our justice system.

Now, here is another question. So we bring them to justice in Guantanamo. We find them guilty in Guantanamo. Are we going to incarcerate them in Guantanamo? Are we going to keep them in a foreign country for crimes they committed against our country or are we going to bring them to a prison here? If we bring them to a prison here, after convicted, those who are convicted, why not try them here to begin with?

Again, this whole notion that these people have no rights, the terrorists win if we suggest that everybody that comes before us has no rights. That's why I oppose this motion.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on H.R. 3170.

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

I am pleased to rise in support of the Financial Services and General Government 2010 appropriations bill, which includes total funding of $24.150 billion.

This is a bill that we worked on cooperatively with our ranking member, Jo Ann Emerson, and I want to thank her for her work that she has put into this bill, for her friendship and her all around goodwill. We had helpful input from our subcommittee members and a productive full committee markup where all members had an opportunity to offer amendments and to have them debated and considered.

This is a bill that we, as a Congress, can be proud of. The agencies that this

bill funds touch the lives of all of us, and the funding is directed to those programs where we believe the American people will derive the most benefit.

You have had a chance to look at the bill and report and to see the specifics of how the money for the 2010 fiscal year have been allocated so, in the interest of time, I'm not going to present a lot of detail regarding each program and agency. Instead, I would like to briefly highlight the five important themes that were addressed throughout this bill.

The first of these is rebuilding the regulatory agencies designed to protect investors, consumers and taxpayers. A significant increase of $76 million above 2009 is provided for the Securities and Exchange Commission. This is the agency that combats financial manipulation, fraud and deceptive practices. It has not been vigilant enough in executing these duties in the past few years. The increase provided will allow the SEC to hire approximately 140 new employees to strengthen their oversight capacity.

In addition, the Federal Trade Commission, which protects consumers in financial matters, will receive $33 million more than in 2009.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission, which plays an important safety role in our product decisions, will also receive increased funding.

Funding is strengthened for several of the Inspector General offices included in our bill that are charged with making sure that regulatory and financial agencies are doing what they're supposed to do.

With regard to the Troubled Assets Relief Program, TARP, the bill requires the Treasury Department to provide reports so that we know how Treasury is addressing those parts of the financial crisis over which it has been given oversight responsibilities.

A second major theme of the bill is to make sure capital and other assistance gets to small businesses and low-income communities, not just to large businesses and the wealthy. Funding increases are directed to the two key agencies which play important roles in this area. The Small Business Administration receives $236 million more than last year, and the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund receives $137 million more than in 2009.

Our third priority of supporting equitable and efficient administration of justice in the Federal courts is met by well-directed funding increases that allow our courts to keep up with the costs and growing workloads.

The fourth theme is to provide for fair and effective collection of taxes. Full funding is provided for the President's request for the IRS, which includes a substantial increase for tax enforcement to close the gap between taxes owed and taxes paid. We also help our taxpayers meet their responsibility by including resources for the IRS to provide assistance in person, over the phone, and on the IRS Web site.

Our final priority is to meet our obligations to the Nation's Capital City, Washington, D.C., by including payments to address high-priority needs. We reduce undue interference in local affairs by dropping numerous restrictions on the District that do not apply to other parts of the Nation. For example, we dropped the prohibition on use of local D.C. tax funds for abortion, thereby putting the District in the same position as the 50 States by leaving that decision up to the elected government of the District of Columbia.

Beyond these five priority areas, our bill touches the lives of Americans in other ways as well. For example, we assist American farmers by clarifying language from last year's bill regarding trade with Cuba and the requirement for payment of ``cash in advance.'' We also provide increased funding for Drug-Free Communities coalitions who work to reduce problems of youth drug abuse in their neighborhoods and communities.

Before I conclude, I would like to thank staff on both sides of the aisle who have made tremendous contributions to this process. All the staff, both majority and minority, have worked long hours with dedication, and I would like to extend my personal thanks.

So let me end by saying that I believe this is a good bill that merits your support. It directs funding to improve the services that our government agencies provide to our constituents as they invest their savings, purchase products, start small businesses and pay taxes. It addresses the needs of our courts and our Nation's Capital City. I would ask for your vote in favor of its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the full committee and the most famous Chicago Cubs fan in the Nation, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the dean of the House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I can certainly appreciate the gentleman from Maryland's frustrations, and he raises an important issue. I will work with the gentleman to ensure that the District of Columbia reviews security procedures at the New Beginning youth facility and works cooperatively with local leaders in the State of Maryland.

I'd like to yield 2 minutes now to a gentlewoman who, notwithstanding some of the things you see happening on this House floor, is really the only Representative from Washington, D.C., Ms. Norton.

I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) who by the way was the strongest leading voice in having us put language in this bill that says that any TARP money has to be explained to the Congress on its use and all kinds of reports come back to Congress.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and also wish her, on behalf of the House, a happy birthday.

I yield the gentlewoman 30 additional seconds.

I yield 1 minute to my friend and leader, the majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague from New York (Mr. Israel).

Could I inquire as to how much time is available?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes for a colloquy to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I agree with the gentleman about the importance of protecting the integrity of the vote count. I was pleased to incorporate HAVA funding in the bill and language in the committee report stressing the importance of gathering information on voting system malfunctions, of making official paper ballots more accessible, and of verifying election results. I hope jurisdictions will use these funds to deploy the most accessible paper ballot voting systems and will audit their election results to ensure the integrity of our democracy.

I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

The gentleman is most welcome, and I look forward to working with him to make sure all States have the funding they need to implement these critical election protection measures.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a member of the subcommittee and one of our great leaders.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for the purposes of a colloquy.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for bringing this to my attention, and I will assure him that I will do my best to work with my Senate colleagues in conference.

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

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman, and I want to thank all of the speakers who have participated today, but I think there is a clarification that needs to be made.

Many speakers have come to the House floor and have spoken about the abortion issue and have said that the American taxpayer is being asked in this bill to foot the bill for abortions. That is not correct, and that has to be made clear.

First of all, to me, the issue is whether or not the District of Columbia should be given the opportunity to govern its own affairs or whether Congress will continue to impose on D.C. its will. So, for many years, the folks in the District of Columbia have had to accept Congress' wishes for many test items and issues throughout the country. I believe that, in some cases--and with all due respect to my colleagues--they have imposed these provisions on the District of Columbia in many areas of gay marriage, of needle exchange programs, of abortion, and of gun issues so that they could go back home and say they had done something on that issue. Yes, they did, to the people of the District of Columbia--not to the people in their districts but to the people of the District of Columbia.

What this bill simply says is that local funds raised locally by the taxpayers of the District of Columbia can be used to provide abortion services. The ban on the use of Federal funds for abortion remains in place.

Let me repeat that. Federal funds going to the District of Columbia cannot be used to supply abortion services. What we've done is to say, local funds that you raise on your own from your own American citizen taxpayers can be used for those purposes. That should be clarified, and people should know the truth.

This bill is a good bill; and I hope that at the end of the day, people will vote for it. It covers many areas. I thank all my colleagues.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer amendment No. 1 printed in the report of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment does several things. First, it increases FY 2010 funding for the Consumer Product Safety Commission by $4.9 million to its authorized level of $118,200,000. I thank my colleagues Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Rosa DeLauro for cosponsoring my amendment to increase funding for the CPSC. Recently enacted consumer protection legislation has increased the workload of the CPSC considerably. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act was signed into law last August. This law sets strict limits on the amount of lead and chemicals that can be used in making children's products. The CPSC has faced many challenges in implementing the new law, and this additional funding will enable them to fully address workload needs.

This amendment incorporates an amendment first offered by my colleague Mr. Hastings to provide an additional $250,000 for the National Credit Union Administration's Community Development Revolving Loan Fund. This is a worthy program that provides loans and grants to credit unions that serve low-income communities with the goal of improving the quality of financial services provided to those communities.

This amendment also incorporates an amendment first offered by my colleague Mr. Cuellar to prohibit the use of funds for first-class travel for employees of agencies funded by the bill. I think it makes sense to prohibit first-class travel for Federal employees.

I will close by saying that this is a good amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I appreciate the gentleman's attention to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. I would like to point out that the Appropriations Committee has been very supportive of FinCEN. The reported bill provides the administration's requested funding increase of $11.3 million, or 12.3 percent, including $10 million to begin upgrades of the Bank Secrecy Act database used by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. We recognize the intent of the gentleman. We think it's a good amendment, and we accept it.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

First of all, I think it is important to realize that a lot of Members, especially--well, all Members from the other side will get up and make it sound as if the last few months have been the months that caused the economic crisis that we are in. The fact of life is that this President is trying to clean up the mess that was created during the last 8 years, because the prior President left this economy in pretty much good shape. It fell apart during these last 8 years. And we are trying to recover.

On this particular matter, the Council of Economic Advisers, or the CEA, was created in 1946 when the country faced a major economic crisis, just as we are doing today. At the end of the Second World War, many feared that the economy would sink back into depression with the phase-out of war spending. The Congress wanted to ensure that sound economic advice would be provided at the highest levels of the administration.

In the wake of a stock market bubble followed by a housing bubble that we have recently had, people have reason to worry about where the growth and jobs of the future will come from. We need the CEA to help the administration make better policy for the future.

Today, CEA has been involved in developing and evaluating the Recovery Act, health care options, energy and greenhouse gas policies, tax changes, job and training programs and other major economic challenges of our time.

As the administration develops policies in all these critical areas, the CEA brings solid, scientific evidence on the economic effects of alternative policies into the discussion. This is probably one of those times where we really need this kind of a Federal agency. And this is not the time to do away with it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

It is very easy for folks on the other side to say, let's not talk about the past administration. I agree. That is not my intention. In fact, our President has said on many occasions the past is the past. But if we keep coming up and making it sound like something happened January 20 until today that brought us to our knees economically, then it is my role, and everybody else's role on this side, just to clarify and to discuss a little history. And the history is the fact that this economy is in bad shape not for anything that has happened this year, but what happened in the past.

On this amendment, this is the wrong time to get rid of this. This is the wrong time to move against it. We need it more than ever. I hope that people will defeat this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

How much time do we have on this side?

I would like to yield myself whatever time I may consume.

You know, when we buy a car, the first thing they tell us is to make sure we service that car regularly, change the parts that are necessary, oil it and keep it in good shape.

We have a democracy, and as the gentleman from New Jersey says, and as everyone knows, at the core of that democracy is the ability to vote and to have our votes counted properly. Yet what we are trying to do here today is to cut away, if you will, from that maintenance program, which is more than a maintenance program. What happened here in 2000 and in other places after 2000 was that the American people, regardless of the outcome of the election, were left with the understanding that something was wrong and that the greatest democracy on Earth was having a difficult time counting people's votes properly. And so HAVA was created.

HAVA is still in operation. HAVA is having moneys go out to communities. This is not the time to cut HAVA funds. On the contrary, this is the time to reinforce the core of our democracy by allocating the necessary funds. Give the States the opportunity to deal with the issue. Let the States deal with the issues back home that they have to as they meet the Federal requirements.

So I would oppose this amendment, and I would remind us that we don't pay that much attention to elections and how we run them because we have had this for so long in this society and this country that we take it for granted. But 2000 should tell us that we should never take it for granted again and that we should pay strict attention to it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. And I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Holt from New Jersey.

I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

It's interesting that when we speak about debt we never bring up the debt that the last administration rang up through the Iraq war. That's got to be at least half a trillion dollars, if not more. And I'm still waiting to find the weapons of mass destruction.

Secondly, if I may brag for a second, I've got the gentlewoman beat. I have four grandchildren. And I don't want to saddle them with any debt in the future. But I think that this bill speaks to another issue that deals with them, and that is their present, so that they don't continue to be ripped off by crooks on Wall Street.

And yet the gentlewoman's cut, for instance, would cut $51 million from the Securities and Exchange Commission, which would slash 120 staff members who have been placed here now to go after the crooks on Wall Street and all the other folks that created a problem for my four grandchildren now.

And so, yes, it is important to talk about the future. But it's also important to talk about the present. And what I keep hearing from folks is that, in a desire to save money now, we should do nothing to go after those people who created, who created much of the problems that we are facing now.

Let me give you another example. The IRS--new enforcement initiatives would go unfunded, resulting in over $600 million in lost tax revenues.

In other words, your 5 percent cut, the gentlewoman's 5 percent cut, would take away funding that goes after my grandchildren? No. After their parents? No. They would go after the millionaires and the zillionaires who are parking money overseas and who are not paying their fair share of taxes. So you would cut, she would cut, the gentlewoman would cut people to go after this.

If this amendment passes, the Small Business Administration would not be able to meet the borrowing needs of small businesses. SBA lending, in its popular 7(a) loan program, which both sides support, would be reduced by $875 million. Many small businesses, and we hear so often on that side about how much they love small business people, many small businesses have turned to the SBA or loans as the credit markets have tightened up, making less credit available to small businesses in this economic downturn. What this amendment proposes, is exactly the wrong thing to do.

The Federal courts would be impacted with a 5 percent reduction

across the board. One thousand full-time employees would be reduced from the Federal courts. On and on, absolutely, you were right. I have a list, but the list is not a list made up by staff or myself just for me to have something to say; it is the result of the impact of a 5 percent reduction. And so, it makes a lot of sense to say, in some cases, it scores a lot of points to say I want to cut the budget by 5 percent. But I think when you look at what we're talking about, you're hurting the very people we should protect.

So let me once again say, I appreciate the fact that the gentlewoman has two grandchildren that she wants to protect in the future. I have four that I want to protect in the future, but I want to make sure that we protect them now by making sure they don't get ripped off again, or their parents, as we did the last couple of years.

I reserve the balance of my time.

We always talk about the debt. The debt was as a result of the last administration. In fact, all of these bailout programs started while we had another President in office.

The fact of life is that we have to protect the present. We have to make sure the past doesn't come back. And this 5 percent cut would hurt the very agencies in this bill that are supposed to assure us of a better present and a better future.

I oppose the amendment and urge its defeat.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to one of our colleagues and subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

I yield myself 1 minute.

It's amazing that we hear about oversight now. Yes, we do have oversight. It's funny how the other side never claimed oversight when the White House was having meetings determining what our energy policy should be between the White House and lobbyists and no Members of Congress were present, or when the White House and the administration knew that there was torture and other actions going on and nothing was being said.

The problem here is this may rise to a new legislative low because on these committees we respect the White House. When President Bush was in and this committee was in function, we let basically the White House have the staff members it said it needed, and now what we're trying to do here legislatively is to fire people at the White House. That's the wrong thing to do, and we should oppose it.

I yield the balance of my time to Chairman Rahall. He takes care of all Puerto Rico issues, so I'm very nice to him.

I object, Mr. Chairman.

I object.

I object.

I object.

The Rules Committee made in order a certain amount of amendments. The Rules Committee is a body composed of Members from both sides. That's the rule that we're working under. And I think that out of respect for the House and the rules that we work under, we should accept that as the format for this debate today, and not to change it in any way just when we feel like it.

I object.

I object.

I object.

I object.

I object.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The Economic Growth Connection of Westmoreland operates a Defense Procurement Assistance Center to serve two counties in southwestern Pennsylvania having a combined population base of 500,000 and combined workforce of over 257,000. The Economic Growth Connection is dedicated to growing small business and making local firms more competitive. This particular project, the Defense Procurement Assistance Program, advances these goals by: Offering assistance to small businesses on how to work with the DOD, including assistance with Federal Acquisition Regulations and workforce training; acting as a liaison between prime contractors and local suppliers to identify opportunities for subcontracting; conducting seminars to enhance the skill sets of the local workforce in this supply chain, including workshops on military certifications, process improvements, and quality assurance; and developing a manufacturing database to identify local companies and their capabilities. This database lists over 800 companies employing an estimated 48,000 people. And over the last 3 years, clients have been awarded on average $40 million each year in procurement contracts.

This is a worthy project. And I think it should be retained.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I object.

I object.

Would the gentleman yield?

I just wanted to know if there was a time during this debate where you were going to show any gratitude to the Rules Committee for the fact that of the 17 amendments you got 11?

I object.

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

I think what this needs is not necessarily an up-or-down vote. It needs clarification. What the gentleman is doing is just using this device to bring up an issue, a very difficult issue that we deal with in this society that does not belong anywhere on this bill. The fact of life is that his amendment is out of order. But we will discuss that later at the proper time.

Let's be clear on what this bill does on that particular issue. For a long time, for as long as I can remember, this Congress, that side of the aisle, has been telling the people, the citizens of the Washington, D.C. what to do, not only on the issue of abortion, on the issue of needle exchange, on the issue of guns, on the issue of gay marriages. On whatever issue is important to go back home and say, I am strong on this issue, rather than do it in their districts, they do it on the District of Columbia. And so they stand up and they say, I'm strong on this issue. Yeah, you are in D.C. I'm strong on that other issue. Yes, you are, in D.C. I'm strong on this third issue. Absolutely, in D.C.

Well, D.C. is not a foreign country. D.C. is American citizens, residents of this Nation who, under some behavior, have been put down by that side year after year after year as something other than second- class citizens.

What my bill does, what our bill does is simply say this: There is now a ban on use of Federal funds for abortions in D.C. There is a ban on local tax dollars being used for abortion services. What I do is remove the local ban so that they can have their own debate and decide whether or not they're going to do it.

You assume they're going to do it. I don't know. They're going to debate that later. They may not do it. But the Federal ban stays in place.

So when you say we will now allow taxpayers dollars, no. The American taxpayer who pays Federal dollars will not have a single dollar be used in Washington, D.C., for abortion services. But it may be that the tax dollars paid by the local residents of D.C. may be used for that. But we don't know that.

So this is not, ladies and gentlemen, a vote on abortion or how you feel about that. It's another form of colonialism, and I know a little bit about that. It is about telling people in D.C. you're not equal to the rest of us. We will tell you what to do. You can't think for yourself.

I'm not the mayor of D.C. I'm not the city council of D.C. They have a mayor. They have a city council. But year after year, on issue, after issue, you pick unfairly on the people who live in the District of Columbia.

I know there are folks on both sides of the aisle who have very strong feelings about the issue of abortion. I only implore you to look at the issue and understand that you're not voting on whether abortions will be taking place in this country or not, or anywhere or not. There are abortions taking place in D.C. right now by those people that can have them. That hasn't stopped. These are services that could be granted to them if they wish to.

So I implore you, do not think about the issue of abortion, but think about the issue of rights of American citizens to conduct their own business and to govern themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair.

I thank the gentleman.

Today, I rise in support of H.R. 1687, legislation to bring well- deserved recognition to Congressman Ralph Regula, who was first elected to Congress in 1972.

Congressman Regula retired in January of this year after serving in Congress for 18 consecutive terms. He had a wealth of experience on the House Appropriations Committee, serving as chairman of both the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee and the Interior Subcommittee.

When I assumed the chairmanship of the House Financial Services Appropriations Committee in this Congress, Congressman Regula was the ranking member, and he was a mentor and a partner. I learned a lot about how to be an effective chairman from Congressman Regula by watching him in action and talking to him as my ranking member.

As a Member from an urban district, New York City, I also learned a lot about him and about farming. And I must tell you, I learned something that may sound funny to some folks, but I learned the difference between jelly and jam, and he was an expert on the subject. What I most treasure is his friendship because Congressman Regula was a true and generous friend to me.

The designation of this Federal building and courthouse in Canton, Ohio, as the Ralph Regula Federal Building and United States Courthouse is an appropriate honor for this man who has devoted his life to public service. He served in the Navy, was a lawyer, a member of the Ohio State Board of Education, the Ohio House of Representatives, and the Ohio State Senate before joining Congress and beginning his many years of distinguished and dedicated service on behalf of his constituents of the 16th Congressional District of Ohio.

We are doing something really good today; we are honoring a man who deserved this. And let me just conclude by saying this: I imagine when we leave here--when the day comes that I leave here--you want to be remembered for your work, but I think more than that you want to be remembered by your colleagues as how you treated them and how you interacted with them. Ralph Regula was a gentleman. Ralph Regula was a colleague. Ralph Regula never had anything nasty to say about anyone. And as I said before, coming from a community where I came from and coming from a community where he would tell me about driving his pickup truck and going out to his farm, it was two different worlds, and yet I learned to admire him, to love him, and to respect him.

And so today I wanted to join this celebration to say thank you to him. And I know, Mr. Speaker, it's somewhere outside the rules of the House to speak to a TV audience or to people in the gallery, so I won't do that, but I suspect that Congressman Regula is watching us today and needs to know that we care about him, that we care a lot, and that this is an honor, one of many, that he truly deserves.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to the Fifty-Second National Puerto Rican Day Parade, which will be held on June 14th, 2009, in New York City. A bright and star-studded event, this parade proudly recognizes the heritage of Puerto Rican people here in the United States, and year upon year has proven to be one of our nation's largest outdoor festivities. This year I am especially pleased to take part in the day because the parade itself is dedicated to the City of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, a vibrant and beautiful community which also happens to be my place of birth.

The National Puerto Rican Day Parade is the successor to the New York Puerto Rican Day Parade, which held its inaugural celebration on Sunday, April 12th, 1958, in ``El Barrio,'' Manhattan. The impact of the first Puerto Rican Day Parade in New York was both immediate and resounding. It galvanized thousands of New York Puerto Ricans in a very public, very proud demonstration of their emergence in the City as an important and growing ethnic group. For the next 38 years, the New York Puerto Rican Day Parade grew into a staple of New York's cultural life. In 1995, the overwhelming success of the parade prompted organizers to increase its size and transform it into the national and, indeed, international, affair that it is today.

This magnificent New York institution now includes participation from delegates representing over thirty states, including Alaska and Hawaii, and attracts well over 3 million parade goers every year. In addition, the parade reaches millions more through television broadcasts and via satellite to viewers the world over.

The great success that the parade enjoys each year is brought about in large measure by the continued and tireless efforts of a few dedicated individuals. They are women and men of able leadership and strong conviction, who believe, as I do, in the limitless potential of people of Puerto Rican descent. Leading this effort is the National Puerto Rican Day Parade, Inc., a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization designed to foster self-awareness and pride among Puerto Ricans in this country, and in so doing, likewise address issues of economic development, education, cultural recognition, and social advancement.

The Parade's march up New York's Fifth Avenue, while certainly the most visible aspect of the celebration, is hardly the only event associated with the National Puerto Rican Day Parade, Inc.'s activities. Each year more than 10,000 people attend a variety of award ceremonies, banquets and cultural events that strengthen the special relationship shared by Puerto Ricans and the City of New York. Over the years, the two have developed a symbiotic relationship. Puerto Ricans have helped transform New York into a dynamic, bilingual city that continues to welcome newcomers from all over the globe. The City of New York, which is a place of opportunity, has enabled Puerto Ricans to flourish economically, culturally and politically.

Madam Speaker, the National Puerto Rican Day Parade captures the spirit of the special relationship between Puerto Ricans and New York City. It celebrates the many ways that we enrich the traditions of this country, and sends a clear signal to all who witness it, that the Puerto Rican community--both in New York and nationally--represents an exquisite tapestry of individuals. As a Puerto Rican and a New Yorker, and as someone who participates in this parade annually, I can attest that the reverberations of this day are both vast and glorious. They can be seen on the faces and heard in the streets, as millions come together to joyously proclaim their heritage. And so it is, Madam Speaker, that with a full and proud heart, I stand before you and my colleagues in Congress to pay tribute to the sights and sounds and wonder that is the National Puerto Rican Day Parade.

Madam Speaker, in recognition of Black History Month 2009, I rise to honor a woman of great stature in our community, Mrs. Angela E. Randall. For nearly sixty years Mrs. Randall has called the South Bronx home; most of that time, thirty-seven years to be precise, she spent in the service of young people. Thousands knew her growing up as a caregiver, a mentor, an educator, and a role model. She has touched the lives of so many that if we knew nothing else about her besides her deep and lasting commitment to our children, it would be enough to know that this is a woman of exceptional character. But we are fortunate to know much more about her than that: a community activist in the truest and noblest sense, Angela Randall has spent a lifetime trying to make this community strong from the ground up, and for that she deserves to be commended.

Angela E. Randall was born in 1928 in New Orleans, Louisiana. She received a Bachelor's Degree from Southern University in Baton Rouge and a Master's Degree from Teacher's College at Columbia University. Academically gifted and not content to stop there, Mrs. Randall further advanced her education at the New School for Social Research and later at Lehman College, where she studied Social Organization and Management. Then in 1968, after working as an Assistant Actuary at Teacher's Retirement System, Mrs. Randall took a position for which she is perhaps best known in the South Bronx: Program Director of the Hunts Point Multi-Service Center, Inc., directing the robust Family Day Care Program. She was the first person to hold this position, and it was there that over the next thirty-seven years Mrs. Randall provided quality, affordable day care to thousands of children in the Bronx, as well as created jobs for hundreds of women in the community by training them to become licensed caregivers.

Mrs. Randall's work with children and mothers is but one aspect of an exceptionally active, well-rounded life. She has belonged to the same place of worship for over a half century, St. Anselm's Catholic Church in the Bronx. There she serves as a Eucharistic Minister and Lecturer, and is also a member of the Parish Council. In addition, Mrs. Randall is Chairperson of the Lincoln Medical and Mental Health Center Auxiliary Board, which she joined in 1976, and acts as Secretary of the Lincoln Hospital Community Advisory Board. She belongs to a number of professional associations including: the Bronx Chapter of the NAACP, the National Council of Negro Women, and is a past Vice President of the Downtown Bronx Democratic Club. Moreover, she has also been the recipient of numerous awards over the years. In 1972 she received the First Puerto Rican Conference Award in recognition of her work with youth, day care, housing and seniors; in 1984 she received the New York State Outstanding Achievement Award from the Bronx Life Members Guild; in 1992 an apartment building on Trinity Avenue in the Bronx was named in her honor the Angela Randall Apartments; and in 2003 she was named Woman of the Year by Lincoln Hospital, just to name a few.

Madam Speaker, Angela Randall owns a full and deeply impactful life. Her compassion and love for young people is known by many, and her influence stretches further than can be measured. For example, how many children did she help to raise and nurture over the past three decades? How many young minds did she help to enrich at a critical stage of development? And more: where are these young people now as a result of her efforts? How many have gone on to become fathers and mothers, find gainful employment, or otherwise assume positions of leadership and responsibility? Angela Randall is someone whose reach has long exceeded her grasp, and because we know her to be a person of integrity, empathy, and faith, we also know that all those whose lives she has touched have been warmed by her spirit, and benefited from her wisdom. Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing a model citizen, and a living testament to selfless devotion to others, Mrs. Angela E. Randall.

Madam Speaker, as our nation celebrates Black History Month and its theme ``The Quest for Black Citizenship in the Americas,'' it is with great pleasure that I rise to honor Dr. Neville A. Parker, Ph.D., an African-American who has devoted himself to the advancement of science and to broadening the participation of under- represented minorities in the fields of mathematics, technology and engineering. Dr. Parker enjoys a distinguished career in international transportation and has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to professionals in developing countries.

Dr. Parker's academic training in engineering began in 1965, when he received a B.E. in Civil Engineering from the City University of New York. He later received an M.E. in Transportation Engineering and a Ph.D. in Systems Engineering from Cornell University in 1966 and 1971, respectively. Dr. Parker is a Registered Professional Engineer in both the United States and the United Republic of Tanzania.

After receiving his Ph.D., Dr. Parker began his illustrious professional career by teaching Civil Engineering at Howard University. He remained in this post until 1979, the last three years of which he spent at the University of Dar Es Salaam in Tanzania as a Senior Fulbright Scholar. Dr. Parker's talents and leadership were immediately recognized, and soon after arriving he became the Head of the Department of Civil Engineering. Dr. Parker's work on engineering capacity building in Tanzania and East and South Africa began with the delivery of a keynote address at the Sixth Pan-African Conference in 1974. Over the subsequent twelve years, Dr. Parker founded and coordinated several highly regarded professional associations, and authored policy documents, studies, and proposals that drew much needed funding to Africa and transformed the field.

In 1989, Dr. Parker returned to the City College of New York as the Herbert G. Kayser Professor of Civil Engineering and the Director of the City University of New York (CUNY) Institute for Transportation Systems. In this capacity, Dr. Parker set the bar for innovative work with professionals in developing countries through the implementation of training programs and collaborations. From 1987 to 1998, Dr. Parker served as Chief Coordinator for the International Road Federation's annual Executive Conferences on Road Asset Management, attracting over three hundred executive level transportation professionals from more than sixty countries across the globe.

Dr. Parker is widely published in international journals and is the co-author of a foundational textbook on highway engineering challenges in Africa. His multiple leadership roles in national and international professional associations are a testament to the respect that so many of Dr. Parker's peers have for him.

Notwithstanding a demanding travel and research schedule, Dr. Parker has retained a steadfast commitment to the education of CUNY students. His transportation infrastructure management courses and supervision of Masters projects and doctoral dissertations are creating a new generation of scholars and practitioners that, following in Dr. Parker's footsteps, will make their own unique contributions for the betterment of our society. Throughout his professional career, Dr. Parker has worked tirelessly to increase minority participation in the sciences. He was Project Director of the Research Careers for Minority Scholars program at City College from 1989-1997 and is the current Director of the New York City Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation program.

Dr. Parker has admirably extended his expertise, resources, and commitment to a myriad of efforts to improve his local Harlem community. A vital member of the Manhattan Borough President Office's Go Green East Harlem Steering Committee, Dr. Parker is currently developing a simulation model to evaluate the public health impacts of transportation, particularly truck and bus operations, in a larger effort to improve air quality. He previously served as the Co-Chair of the Transportation and Economic Development Committee for the Empowerment Zone application, and is recognized for his research on public empowerment in transportation decision-making processes.

Well-respected among his peers, Dr. Parker has received numerous awards including: the Black Engineer of the Year-Outstanding Educator Award (1994); the Giant in Science Award (1996); and the Outstanding Achievement in Education Award (2003). He was recognized in 2006 as one of the top 25 African Americans in education, science and medicine by New York's Who's Who.

Madam Speaker, Dr. Parker is a role model and an inspiration to us all. His passion for the progress of science and his commitment to expanding opportunities in this field to under-represented communities is commendable. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Dr. Neville A. Parker.

Just for clarification to the gentlewoman (Mrs. Emerson), the D.C. School Vouchers Program will remain in effect. It has been funded this year for $14 million. It remains in effect until June of 2010. It will then be up to the authorizing committee to speak to our committee as to what they want to do. It will also be up to the D.C. Government to tell us if they wish to continue the program. The program stays in effect until next June, and I think that will give us ample time to find out how everyone feels about the continuation of the program.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank Chairman Obey for yielding time so I can comment on the Financial Services and General Government portion of this bill. I'd also like to thank him for the hard work he has put into bringing this bill to the floor.

The Financial Services and General Government section of this bill provides important funding to ensure that the Federal Government is more responsive to the needs of the people, and increases resources to ensure the agencies under this section have increased resources to perform important oversight roles over the operation of our banks and of Wall Street.

The bill provides $22.7 billion in discretionary appropriations for programs within the Department of the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President, the Federal Judiciary, the District of Columbia, the General Services Administration, the Small Business Administration, and several smaller agencies. This bill directs funding to programs in these agencies where we believe money will be well spent and will benefit, for example, disadvantaged communities and small businesses.

The bill also directs funding toward agencies that have important roles in our efforts to promote economic recovery. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included nearly $6.9 billion for agencies in the Financial Services bill, including the Treasury Department, the General Services Administration, and the Small Business Administration. The bill we are considering today will provide these agencies with funding to enable them to fully implement important recovery activities, such as support to small businesses and making our Federal buildings and vehicles more energy efficient.

I also want to highlight briefly four important themes in the Financial Services bill--financial sector oversight, consumer protection, small business development, and election administration improvements.

With respect to financial sector oversight, the bill provides funding increases over last year's level and the previous administration's requests for Treasury's Departmental Offices, information systems, and Inspector General. While this bill doesn't directly fund the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, it funds the Office of the Secretary and other executive leadership offices at Treasury that have central responsibility in making policy decisions on TARP. These funds will help ensure that the remaining TARP money will be distributed in an open and fair manner.

Mr. Speaker, I also want the House to know that we have increased the budget for the Securities and Exchange Commission. This bill includes a $37 million increase over the FY 2008 level, and is above the funding recommendations of both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. This is just a down payment toward restoring the ability of the SEC to vigorously oversee the financial markets, enforce securities law, and protect investors.

If I might take a moment to look ahead, this subcommittee will be taking a hard look at

those agencies that failed in their duty to protect our economy. Although they are under new leadership now, we will have important questions for them in how they conducted themselves, and what resources and changes are needed to ensure such a crisis does not occur again in the future.

Regarding consumer protection, the Consumer Product Safety Commission would receive $25.4 million above the FY 2008 level. These extra funds will be used to continue the effort we started in the last Congress to restore the Commission's ability to keep unsafe products, including unsafe imported products, out of the marketplace. Money is also available in the bill for the Commission to improve the safety of pools and spas to prevent tragedies involving child drowning.

Consumer protection is also important with respect to financial products such as mortgages and consumer loans. My subcommittee held a hearing last year that examined the problems relating to the subprime mortgage market and what the Treasury Department and the Federal Trade Commission could do to address this situation. Treasury's Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, which will receive $107 million in this bill, or $78.4 million above the previous administration's request, helps to expand the availability of credit, capital and financial services to underserved communities throughout the nation, including those particularly hard hit by the credit crisis. The Federal Trade Commission will also receive increased funding for investigation and enforcement in the financial services area, including subprime lending investigations.

This bill also does a great deal to support small businesses by including $612 million for the Small Business Administration. This includes $110 million for Small Business Development Centers, which is $13 million over the FY 2008 level. We also provide $22.5 million for microloans and technical assistance to the smallest companies.

In addition, the bill funds SBA programs that target disadvantaged and low-income communities and entrepreneurs, including the HUBZone program, the PRIME program, and the 7(j) program.

The fourth important theme is improving election administration. The Election Assistance Commission is a small agency that works on issues that are extraordinarily essential to the Nation and to voters' confidence that their votes are counted accurately. This bill includes $100 million for payments to States to help them meet the requirements of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, as well as additional funding for research and testing of voting systems. This funding will help ensure that elections are fair, accessible, and accurate.

Mr. Speaker, the Financial Services section of this bill also includes a number of policy provisions that will address some ongoing congressional concerns.

It includes, for example, a moratorium on new competitive sourcing-- also known as A-76--activities. The provision halts the previous administration's controversial and detrimental Federal workforce program so that the new Administration can consider and implement its own workforce policies.

The bill also contains a provision to prohibit funds from being used in support of the IRS private debt collection program. Under this very misguided and wasteful program, the IRS allows private contractors to collect unpaid taxes and to keep up to 24 percent of the tax revenue they bring in. This program should be terminated, and the prohibition on funds will help ensure that the IRS better redirects their resources elsewhere.

The Financial Services section also includes provisions to liberalize travel to Cuba for Americans who have family members living in that nation. There is no reason to place any restrictions on those who simply wish to visit their families that are still in Cuba. In addition, the bill contains provisions to facilitate trade with Cuba relating to agricultural and medical product sales.

This section of the bill also encourages our Federal Government to address an important Federal worker benefit issue that has already been successfully dealt with by about 10,000 private sector employers, including more than half of the Fortune 500 companies. We have included report language that clearly states that, ``OPM should consider taking steps to extend health care benefits to Federal employees' domestic partners.'' It is past time for our Federal Government to take a lead in providing this important employee benefit.

Mr. Speaker, the Financial Services provisions of this bill include many important funding and policy choices that will improve the services our government agencies provide to our constituents as they pay taxes, purchase products, vote in elections, and start small businesses. I urge a yes vote on this bill.

With the indulgence of the Members, I know we all want to leave and catch a plane or train, but I have been fortunate during the 2 years that I have been chairman of this committee to have Dale Oak as the committee clerk. And I want to wish him all the best and tell the Members that those individuals who work 24/7 into late at night are people like Dale Oak who make us look good and who serve the American people although their name and their work sometimes is not seen on a daily basis.

And so I thank you, Dale, for your service to our country.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Robert F. Nolan, a man who has made service to our community his pride and his life's work. In his capacity as an advisor to three Bronx Borough presidents during some of the most turbulent times our city has ever witnessed, time and again Bob was confronted with singular challenges that would have reduced a lesser figure to despair and resignation. Instead Bob rose to the occasion, time and time again. He took part in some of the most momentous decisions that could confront a public official, and he did so with poise, clarity of purpose, and unusual dedication. Bob has been one of the truest and finest examples of a public servant who never gave up on the Bronx, but instead continued to serve through the hardest of times. He committed himself at a young age to improving his beloved community, and has had the endurance and strength of character to spend a lifetime in pursuit of this goal. While many have come and gone, Bob has never left the Bronx--and the Bronx cannot possibly forget that fact.

Born in Westchester Square Hospital, Bob Nolan was educated at Our Lady of Solace School in Morris Park and then Fordham University. A community and political activist since the early 1970s, he began his career as an instructor at Borough of Manhattan Community College. Later, he moved on to the mayor's office of economic development, where he was in charge of the business action center. In January 1979, Bob joined the office of the Bronx Borough president as director of economic development. He quickly set in motion the plan which led to the creation of the Bronx Overall Economic Development Corporation in 1980.

The 1980s were a critical period for the Bronx. The previous two decades saw the quality of life in the Bronx dramatically diminish. A widespread deterioration was underway, as the city suffered the aftermath of a painful fiscal collapse. Some neighborhoods felt the hurt more than others, but few felt it worse than the South Bronx. This was the climate in which Bob began his journey to restore our borough's greatness.

This was no easy task. At the time, private and public disinvestment had taken a huge toll on many Bronx neighborhoods. But these circumstances neither deterred nor discouraged Bob. Perhaps his work is best judged by the vitality we have witnessed in our borough in recent years. Across the board, the Bronx has undergone a remarkable transformation--and credit should rightly be given to the sound fiscal and public investment policies first championed by Bob and his colleagues at the very dawn of our borough's resurgence. His thoughtful planning and careful stewardship helped pave the way for innumerable capital projects and a wholesale restoration of confidence in the borough on the part of the city's business community. Bob helped demonstrate that the Bronx was once again a fertile place for investment.

In the 1990s, Bob was appointed budget director for the borough, a position he held until the day he retired--November 14, 2008. His role as budget director required Bob to recommend capital projects to the borough president and help shape budgets and establish spending priorities that furthered past efforts and blazed new paths toward economic revival. We will undoubtedly continue to see the fruits of Bob's labor for many years to come.

Looking back at this extraordinary life of service, what is unique about Bob Nolan's story is the completeness of it. Three decades ago, Bob set out to make the Bronx a better place, working tirelessly from within the halls of government. These many years later, he retires with that goal now very much in his sights. He has had many different responsibilities over the years, but the same motivating factor: a love for his borough and its people. Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Mr. Robert F. Nolan, a man who loves his hometown fiercely and whose whole life is a unique testament to civic duty.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to once again pay tribute to Francesc de Paula Soler, a gifted and world-renowned musician.

Mr. Soler grew up in Spain and comes from a Catalan family of well- known artists. He began studying the guitar at the age of 6 and was completely immersed in it by age 11, earning the highest honors in the prestigious Conservatorio Superior de Musica in Barcelona, Spain. Mr. Soler received rigorous training from legendary guitarists Andres Segovia, known as the ``Father of Classical Guitar'', and Narciso Yepes.

Mr. Soler has become a legend in his own right due to his unique skills in conveying emotions through the strings of his guitar. Mr. Soler has performed in music halls and auditoriums throughout the United States and Europe for audiences of all ages and backgrounds. Some of the venues include the Library of Congress, the Levine School of Music and the Acheson Auditorium at the United States Department of State.

Commonly known as the ``Poet of the Guitar,'' Mr. Soler has received numerous awards and recognitions, including: Honorary Citizen of Dallas, Honorary Citizen of Corpus Christi, Golden Key of the Corpus Christi City, Medal of the U.S. Military Academy and the Plaque of the Catalan Catholic Church Council.

In commemoration of Hispanic Heritage Month and the positive contributions of Hispanic-Americans throughout our nation's history, Mr. Soler will once again grace the Library of Congress with his music. I encourage all of my colleagues to attend Mr. Soler's concert on October 15, 2008 and enjoy his uplifting music.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Francesc de Paula Soler for his contributions to the world of music.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule that would allow the Norton bill and in strong opposition to the amendment that treats the District of Columbia as a colony.

I have said many times that Congress needs to stop imposing its will on the residents of the District of Columbia. As chairman of the subcommittee that overseas the District, I have made noninterference in District affairs a priority of my oversight. D.C. does not need a second mayor and does not need a second city council, although there are Members here today who seem interested in serving for both.

The amendment to Delegate Norton's bill is particularly offensive. Under the cover of forcing D.C. to comply with the Supreme Court ruling, it instead guts D.C.'s ability to protect its citizens from unnecessary violence.

I sincerely believe that supporters of this amendment are seeking to impose on D.C. that which they would never impose on their own communities simply because D.C. is under their control and they're not accountable to D.C. residents. What the heck, it's the District of Columbia; use it as a testing ground for anything you can't do back home.

One of the most unpleasant features of our current democracy is the fact that many millions of U.S. citizens in the District, Puerto Rico, and other territories do not have fair and equal representation here in Congress but instead are left to the subject of the whims of a Congress elected by citizens.

D.C. is a jurisdiction that does not need constant congressional meddling in local affairs. Their gun laws are no exception. They know best how to keep their citizens and residents like us safe from the threat of deadly gun violence.

The Supreme Court asked them to modify their laws to comply with the Constitution. The District is doing so

in a responsible manner. In fact, today they are meeting to consider amendments to bring their firearm laws in compliance with the Supreme Court ruling. The underlying Norton bill would ensure that they continue to do so.

Unfortunately, this amendment would tie the hands of city officials to impose even the most basic reasonable safety measures and goes far beyond what the Supreme Court has required. It would, for instance, prohibit gun registration, prohibit any ban on purchasing in another State and bringing the gun to D.C., remove a clip limit--now, are you ready for this one--prohibit the D.C. Government from discouraging gun purchase and ownership.

In other words, you can tell people not to drink and drive; you can tell them to practice safe sex; you can tell them not to drop out of school; but you can't tell them that it's not a good idea to buy a gun.

This is, my friends, congressional colonialism at its worst. Our rule is not to override and interfere with local compliance with Supreme Court rulings. The citizens and residents of D.C. deserve our respect. This amendment fails that basic test.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to try something innovative. I want to discuss the bill before us and not this other discussion we had on drilling. While I understand the importance of it, we were discussing a bill, for those Americans who were watching who might have forgotten by now, on putting national parks on the backs of quarters. And I want to congratulate both Mr. Castle and Mrs. Maloney and the committee for including the Territories. As the gentleman from Delaware stated, he alluded to the Speaker and the fact that I have great concern about the involvement of the Territories and the recognition.

When the original quarters program came about, I was dismayed at the fact that the territories and the District of Columbia were not included. Last year in an appropriations bill, we expanded the program to include D.C. and the Territories.

What you have done today is you have picked up on that and now have started a new era, I believe, where the Territories and the District of Columbia will become part of every discussion we have here from postage stamps to coins to, in many other areas, fairness across the board.

When that first quarter comes out, both the one for the national parks and the one for the regular quarters program with Puerto Rico on it, since Puerto Rico is of great concern to me, having been born there before moving to New York, many people throughout the country will actually ask, Why is Puerto Rico on the back of a quarter in the United States? And that will start a proper discussion as to the fact that we not only include in the American family the 50 States, but we include the District of Columbia and the Territories. That in the Territories are American citizens, American citizens who served this country at wartime and peacetime, and who, in fact, at any moment can participate in all parts of American society but are always forgotten.

So something as symbolic and perhaps to some people as unimportant as making sure that when these quarters come out with national parks, they include Puerto Rico and the Territories, is very important.