Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes the repeal of the District of Columbia budget autonomy referendum, which allows D.C. to spend its own local funds, consisting of local taxes and local fees, after a 30-day congressional review period. Astonishingly, House Republicans appear to be so afraid of a local jurisdiction spending its local funds without the approval of a Federal body, the U.S. Congress, that they will be voting for a second time in a little over a month to repeal the referendum. D.C.'s budget autonomy referendum is in effect as I speak. The D.C. Council recently passed its first local budget pursuant to the referendum. Therefore, the repeal would be the most significant reduction in the District of Columbia's authority to govern itself since Congress granted the city limited home rule in 1973. Smart lawyers differed about the validity of the referendum when D.C. enacted it. However, the referendum has been litigated, and there is only one judicial opinion in effect. In March, the D.C. Superior Court upheld the referendum, no appeal was filed, and the court ordered D.C. employees to implement it. Some House Republicans had either been disguising or simply mistaken in their opposition to the referendum because they are using legalistic arguments. For example, the Speaker revealed a reason that some may oppose the referendum. He said: ``There are real consequences. The D.C. government wants to use revenues to fund abortions in the District. House Republicans will not stand for that.'' Well, the Speaker was wrong about the effect of the budget autonomy referendum. Congress loses nothing under budget autonomy. Congress retains the authority to legislate on any D.C. matter, including its local budgets at any time. Mr. Chairman, this is not statehood, I am here to tell the floor this evening. The referendum is a modest attempt by a local jurisdiction to get enough control of its local funds to be able to implement its own budget soon after it is passed, like other American jurisdictions, instead of having it caught up into congressional delays that have nothing to do with our local budget. Indeed, the riders in this bill prohibiting D.C. from spending its local funds on marijuana commercialization and abortion services for low-income women were changed from those in prior appropriations bills to apply whether or not D.C. has budget autonomy. Historically, D.C. riders applied only to funds included in appropriations bills because only appropriations bills authorized D.C. spending. In this bill, the riders apply to any D.C. funds, however authorized, including those in budgets passed pursuant to budget autonomy. The riders Congress places in D.C. appropriations bills will be untouched by budget autonomy. Local control over local dollars raised by local taxpayers is a principle much-cited by congressional Republicans and is central, if I may say so, to the American people form of government. Beyond this core principle, budget autonomy has practical benefits for the District, including lower borrowing costs, more accurate revenue and expenditure forecasts, improved agency operations, and the removal of the threat of D.C. government shutdowns because the Federal Government shuts down. D.C.'s budget is bigger than the budgets of 14 States, Mr. Chairman. It raises more than $7 billion in local funds. While D.C. is in a better financial position than most cities and States, with a rainy-day fund of $2.17 billion on a total budget of $13.4 billion, budget autonomy would make the district economy even stronger. Why would anybody in this House oppose that possibility? The repeal of the referendum is not only bad policy, it is a blight on this country's most revered principle--local control. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, it is a mystery to me why we would want to move forward with this bill. I will have amendments to strike portions of this bill later. I just want to speak to a couple of the reasons. The extension of the probationary period, for example, may not raise constitutional issues. A GAO report was done and indicated that the problem was not with length of the probationary period, but with the use of the probationary period; that supervisors simply weren't using it, and that many of them didn't even know when the probationary period ends. So why would we want to lengthen the probationary period? I am not sure who that helps. Does it help the employee or does it help the agency? In any case, depending, as I do, on an objective source, this section is unnecessary. To cite another section, the termination of an employee in the SES is an absolutely bad way to deal with somebody who is not making it as a manager, but was good enough to be promoted to the SES. We have invested millions of dollars in an employee by the time that employee gets to be a top SES employee and gets promoted to manager. It won't be the first time that somebody has been an excellent employee, but when he got to managing whole divisions, he was not good. Why get rid of that employee instead of demoting that employee, as is now done? Finally, this bill is replete with due process problems. For example, it expedites the removal and appeals process and takes it away entirely in some instances. This bill reeks of constitutional infirmities. It should not be passed. You will find Members on our side who want to sit down and improve the process and are ready to do so.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment would strike sections 402, 405(b), 406, 407, and 408. While some reforms to the Senior Executive Service may well be necessary, these sections go too far because they roll back significant due process rights for Federal employees and raise potential constitutional issues. Section 402, which lengthens the probationary period for SES employees from 1 year to 2 years, is unnecessary. There is no evidence to indicate that such a provision will help agencies deal with poor performers in the workplace. In fact, a Federal 2015 GAO report found that agencies are already using probationary periods but could be using them more effectively. Of the 3,500 Federal employees who were dismissed in 2013, the majority were dismissed during the probationary period. Instead of extending this period, we should be looking at ways to improve its use by agencies and increasing congressional oversight to ensure that the Federal workforce is operating at its best. Section 405(b) is similarly problematic. This section would allow an agency to remove an SES employee from civil service entirely for poor performance. Under current law, poor-performing employees, instead, are initially downgraded to a GS position, a level at which they could perform very well. Even if they were poor performers at the SES level, they would not have been promoted in the first place if they had not achieved good records, but may not be good managers. This section also shortens the notice period from 30 days to 15, making it extremely difficult for affected employees to exercise their due process rights. Section 406 represents a serious constitutional issue by giving agencies the authority to place an SES employee on mandatory leave, forcing these employees to use their own accrued leave. This violates basic constitutional principles, as it is likely a taking of a vested property right or it is a suspension that triggers due process rights. This mandatory leave provision has little chance of withstanding constitutional scrutiny and should be struck. Section 407 further represents an attack on Federal employees' due process rights. This provision expedites the removal and appeals process and adopts provisions of other Federal law that is currently being challenged in the Federal circuit. In a Statement of Administration Policy in opposition to this bill, the White House has said that the President will veto it if it comes across his desk, at least in part because this section ``would raise significant constitutional concerns under the Appointments Clause and the Due Process Clause.'' It is unlikely that this section could withstand constitutional scrutiny and also should be struck now. Section 408 requires reassignment of SES employees to different geographical locations, which is arbitrary, inflexible, and ignores the needs of individual agencies. This provision is unnecessary, given that the President signed an executive order in November 2015 that would strengthen the Senior Executive Service by requiring agency heads to develop a 2-year plan for increasing the mobility of SES employees. We may need reform legislation to deal with poor performers, Mr. Chairman, but we cannot do so by rolling back due process rights and protections for Federal employees who, unlike private employees, are protected by the Constitution of the United States. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I remind the gentleman that SES employees already have fewer rights than other employees because they are management and that we have invested millions of dollars in them. We have gotten them into the SES, a very competitive service, in the first place, so this off-with-your-head approach punishes the American people who may have perfectly fine employees at the SES level. But, for example, to indicate one of my amendments might downgrade them rather than getting rid of them, there are other provisions here that would doubtlessly not survive constitutional scrutiny. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, anyone who thought the Democrats would go away after we were driven to a sit-in on the House floor for gun safety legislation learned differently very soon after we got home on Wednesday, June 29, when events were held all across the country on a National Day of Action for Gun Violence Prevention. We served notice. Yes, there have been moments of outrage and sometimes we have not kept up the battle unceasingly. Watch us this time. I am very pleased that our very effective police chief, Cathy Lanier, came with me to a roundtable where we heard not only from her, but from residents of the District of Columbia who have experienced the incredible heartache and throbbing agony of the loss of a loved one to gun violence. This morning, unstimulated by me, parents organized themselves to come to the Capitol at 9 a.m. They call themselves D.C. Moms and Dads for Rational Gun Safety Legislation. They are a group of spontaneously formed District of Columbia parents who lack voting representation in the Congress, although they pay the highest taxes per capita of any Americans. They do not have the final vote on the House floor, and they have no Senators. They wanted to come and show their support for national gun legislation to prevent gun violence in our city and our country. They came when, the week before, I had just fought off three amendments in the House Rules Committee to undermine D.C.'s gun laws with an attempt to erase some of those laws. It is interesting that, in the Rules Committee, I was able to keep those Republican amendments to take away our gun laws from being made in order. I think it is because the Rules Committee took place only days after Orlando, and even Republicans didn't have the nerve to authorize gun legislation so close to the Orlando gun massacre. Is that what it is going to take? Or will it take the persistence that you saw when Democrats had no alternative but to sit on this hard floor just before recess? Now, the Republicans have gotten the permission of the NRA to include a gun bill in a pending bill. No wonder, it makes things worse. Now you would have to go before a judge before you can get someone off the no- fly list, instead of depending on the slow administrative process, you would go through the much slower judicial process. Thank you for nothing. It certainly won't satisfy us or the American people. We who live in your Nation's Capital, need national gun legislation to keep guns from flowing in from weak gun jurisdictions, and we need Congress to leave our gun safety laws alone. Without fail, every single year, I have to drive back attempts to overturn our gun laws. I just described three that were in the Rules Committee before we left that I was able to drive back because of Orlando. Yes, I am proud that the Nation's Capital has the strongest gun laws in the country, as well it might. Controversial world figures walk our streets and visit our restaurants. Weak gun laws we do not need in this Capital. We have effective enforcement. We have good relations among Chief Lanier and her police force and our residents. But we are still at the mercy of a Congress, which will not do its job. During our House sit-in, I left the floor to go to a press conference held by the Mayor and the police chief, displaying AK-47s and other guns illegal in the District of Columbia but that you can simply go to a gun show and buy, undermining our gun laws. Our gun problem in cities like ours and many cities and jurisdictions across the country are not local problems. They are a national problem. That is why you see us demanding universal background checks. That is why we are demanding that Congress stop censuring the CDC from studying gun laws. I thank the moms and dads and kids who marched to the Capitol today for overriding their denial of a vote to come here. You sent a dual message: pass gun safety legislation, and give D.C. the vote.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding to me because I must rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 794 and H.R. 5485. They assault the District of Columbia's right to govern itself. This bill contains undemocratic, harmful, Big Government riders that prohibit the D.C. government from spending its local funds, consisting of local taxes and fees, as it deems necessary. In addition, the Republican-led Rules Committee has allowed Representative Gary Palmer to offer an amendment and interfere with my jurisdiction to keep D.C. from spending its local funds to enforce its own employment non-discrimination law. This bill repeals the D.C. budget autonomy referendum, which allows D.C. to spend its local funds after a 30-day review period. The Rules Committee prevented me from offering my amendments to strike the provisions in this bill that prohibit D.C. from spending its local funds on taxing and regulating marijuana sales and on abortion services for low-income women. Let's see the results. While recreational marijuana use is legal under D.C. law, Congress has uniquely prohibited the city from spending its local funds to set up a tax and regulatory system. This rider, therefore, has been referred to as the Drug Dealer Protection Act. As one marijuana dealer told the press, the rider is ``a license for me to print money.'' Regulating marijuana, like alcohol, would allow D.C., instead of violent drug gangs, to control marijuana production, distribution, sales, and revenue collection. Every State has the authority to spend its own funds on abortion services for low-income women, and 17 States fund these services. The rider in this bill effectively prevents low-income women in D.C. from exercising their constitutional right to abortion, just affirmed by the Supreme Court, by depriving them of necessary funds. Republicans claim to support devolving Federal authority to State and local governments. Here is your chance. That support should not end at the D.C. border. The Constitution allows, but does not require, Congress to legislate on local D.C. matters. The Rules Committee had a choice to allow me to offer my amendments on the floor to strike the D.C. marijuana and abortion riders as well as to block the amendment on the D.C. non-discrimination law. In our democracy in the 21st century, these decisions should not be difficult because these are purely local matters. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and bill. The rule and bill are assaults on the District of Columbia's right to govern itself. This bill contains three undemocratic, harmful, big-government riders that prohibit the D.C. government from spending its local funds, consisting of local taxes and fees, as it deems necessary. In addition, the Republican-led Rules Committee has allowed Representative Gary Palmer to offer an amendment to block D.C. from spending its local funds to enforce a local employment non- discrimination law, the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act. The bill repeals D.C.'s budget autonomy referendum, which allows D.C. to spend its local funds after a 30-day congressional review period. Astonishingly, House Republicans appear to be so afraid of a local jurisdiction spending its local funds without the approval of a federal body, the U.S. Congress, that they will be voting for a second time in a little over a month to repeal the referendum. I will offer an amendment to strike the repeal of the referendum. However, the Rules Committee prevented me from offering my amendments to strike the provisions in this bill that prohibit D.C. from spending its local funds on taxing and regulating marijuana sales and on abortion services for low-income women. Four states have legalized the possession of marijuana for recreational use, and they either have set up a tax and regulatory system or are in the process of doing so. While recreational use is legal under D.C. law, Congress has uniquely prohibited D.C. from spending its local funds to set up a tax and regulatory system. This rider has been referred to as the Drug Dealer Protection Act. As one marijuana dealer told the press, the rider is ``a license for me to print money.'' Regulating marijuana like alcohol would allow D.C., instead of violent drug gangs, to control marijuana production, distribution, sales and revenue collection. Every state has authority to spend its own funds on abortion services for low-income women, and 17 states fund these services. This rider effectively prevents low-income women in D.C. from exercising their constitutional right to abortion by depriving them of necessary funds. Remarkably, this bill could have been even more harmful to the District of Columbia. Three amendments were filed to block D.C. gun safety laws, but they were not made in order. There was no way the Republican leadership could bring these deadly amendments to the floor so soon after Orlando. Representative Thomas Massie filed two amendments. One would have allowed handguns, shotguns and rifles to be carried, openly or concealed, on the streets of the nation's capital. The other would have blocked D.C. from enforcing its enhanced penalties for carrying a gun in schools and other places where children congregate. Representative David Schweikert filed an amendment that would have allowed people to get a concealed carry permit without demonstrating a ``good cause'' for needing one. These amendments presented a threat not only to D.C. residents, but also to the millions who visit the nation's capital and the high- ranking federal officials and foreign dignitaries who travel around the city daily. Republicans claim to support devolving federal authority to state and local governments. That support should not end at the D.C. border. The Constitution allows, but does not require, Congress to legislate on local D.C. matters. The Rules Committee had a choice to allow me to offer my amendments on the floor to strike the D.C. marijuana and abortion riders, as well as to block the Palmer amendment. In our American democracy in the 21st century, that choice should not have been difficult.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Deshauna Barber of Northeast Washington, D.C., a graduate of Virginia State University and the University of Maryland University College, who was crowned Miss USA 2016 this month. Ms. Barber demonstrates the best qualities of District residents, and we believe she will bring out their best qualities as well during her reign. We are particularly proud that Ms. Barber is a lieutenant in the United States Army Reserve, serving as a Logistics Commander for the 988th Quartermaster Detachment Unit at Fort Meade, Maryland. She also works as an IT consultant at the United States Department of Commerce. During her downtime, Ms. Barber enjoys hometown D.C., and has a particular fondness for Gallery Place in Chinatown and our hometown staple Ben's Chili Bowl. Deshauna is a strong advocate for gender equality, particularly for our nation's military women. The nation, especially the District of Columbia, takes great pride in the constellation of characteristics and talents Miss District of Columbia brings to her work as Miss USA 2016. A District resident has won Miss USA only three times. Lt. Barber's victory comes at a watershed moment when District residents will be asked to approve a new D.C. statehood constitution in November. This effort has already significantly increased the visibility of D.C. statehood throughout the country. Our D.C. Miss USA almost surely brings new interest in her hometown and everything about D.C., including its quest for statehood. Today, Miss USA 2016, Deshauna Barber, has earned not only her title, but, like the almost 700,000 other residents of the District, the right to full and equal citizenship. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Miss District of Columbia, Deshauna Barber, the 2016 Miss USA, and to thank her for her service to the country as a lieutenant in the United States Army Reserve and as a representative of the best of the citizens of the District of Columbia as Miss USA 2016.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to the Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2016 that would ensure that the environment and human health aspects are protected. The amendment states that if the EPA Administrator, in consultation with the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, finds that application of any provision of this act could harm human health or the environment, the Ozone Standards Implementation Act shall cease to apply. The Ozone Standards Implementation Act puts our children, communities, and environment at extreme risk simply to benefit private corporations rather than to look at what the act could do to people. It weakens implementation and enforcement of the Clean Air Act's essential air pollution health standards, further delays reductions in smog pollution, and expands the very definition of ``exceptional events'' to include high pollution days when communities exclude certain extreme events, like wildfires, in determining whether their air quality meets national standards. The bill also takes health and medical science out of the process. My amendment ensures that we will fulfill the purpose of the Clean Air Act and continue the progress we have made over the past 46 years. One fact pointed out by the Statement of Administration Policy is that the ``emissions of key pollutants have decreased by nearly 70 percent while the economy has tripled in size.'' This proves that we can both improve the environment and still grow our domestic economy. Right now, just to cite my own district as an example, 17,000 children in the District of Columbia have pediatric asthma and over 115,000 children and teens in the District are at risk of health implications from smog. Our health and future depend on the Clean Air Act, but the Ozone Standards Implementation Act will put us right back where we were before 1970. I urge the adoption of my amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, part of the problem is, perhaps, that EPA has never requested this particular advice from CASAC. My amendment would make it clear that Congress wants the EPA to do so. Yes, I made clear that there had been improvements in air quality, despite the fact that our own industry, our own economic growth has tripled. Would anybody say that we are now where we want to be? We do not want, at this point of progress, to countermand the progress we have made. We should be building on that progress. No one, I think, in the world today--and certainly in the United States--would say we have finally reached where we want to be. The improvements are not nearly enough. We need to go much more rapidly. We certainly don't need to be retrograde at this point in history when the whole world now is looking at this very issue and seeking to improve. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, we should all be grateful to the authors of the Clean Air Act for the progress we have achieved. The way to express our gratitude is to use an occasion like this to expand, not to retract, that act. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing and commending Bryan ``Scottie'' Irving, president of Blue Skye Development and Construction as our 2016 D.C. Small Business of the Year. The D.C. Small Business of the Year is named annually at our D.C. Small Business Fair, and serves as an example to inspire D.C. small businesses on what can be accomplished by small businesses here. We selected Blue Skye Development and Construction not only because of its successes as a small business in the highly competitive construction field, but also because of the company's work in providing affordable housing in the District. No area of entrepreneurship for businesses of every size today is more difficult than affordable housing. Blue Skye is working in Southeast D.C. to provide affordable condominium units for District residents. Blue Skye is experienced in local construction, and has worked on Marleyridge Condominiums, Arena Condominiums, Terrell Jr. High School, the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization, Tewkesbury Condominiums, Washington Highlands Neighborhood Library, Rosedale Recreation Center, Park 7, Hayes Street Apartments, and Bald Eagle Recreation Center. Bryan ``Scottie'' Irving is a fifth generation Washingtonian with very strong ties to the District of Columbia. Mr. Irving is a graduate of Cardozo High School and Central State University in Ohio. Before founding Blue Skye Development and Construction, Bryan was a D.C. public school teacher and also had a successful career as vice president of basketball and football recruitment with Business Arena Inc., a sports marketing firm. Today, Blue Skye serves government, residential, and commercial clients across the national capital region. The company is an example and a role model for D.C. residents and small businesses who seek to succeed in business by providing outstanding service. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Bryan ``Scottie'' Irving of Blue Skye Development and Construction, this year's D.C. Small Business of the Year, for his noteworthy accomplishments in the construction of affordable housing and numerous government and other projects.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring four special women in the District of Columbia who attend the Zion Baptist Church and will reach the significant milestone of turning 100 years old this summer. All four women are native Washingtonians, have known each other since early childhood and have remained lifelong friends. The Zion Baptist Church will officially recognize Ruth Elizabeth Chatman Hammett (June 14, 1916), Gladys Ware Butler (July 4, 1916), Bernice Grimes Underwood (July 23, 1916) and Leona Costello Barnes (July 18, 1916) on June 18, 2016. As little girls, the four grew up together in Southwest D.C. and could not have predicted, as they reflected on the many years and changes that followed their lives, that they would one day celebrate their 100th birthdays together. As they grew up, got married and had children, they witnessed the shaping of a remarkable century. They had relatives who fought in World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. They felt hope listening to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the despair of the riots that wracked their beloved city after his assassination. As they settled into middle age, they saw their family members join in the civil rights struggle for equality as they lived out their days in the neighborhood, and they never imagined that their friendship would outlast the stoops and storefronts. But in the 1950s, the area was marked for urban renewal and razed, decimating the community as their church congregation and neighbors were eventually scattered. But despite this upheaval, the four women's friendship persisted. They saw each other become grandmothers, great- grandmothers, and ``great-great-greats''. They still share fond memories of places and people that no one else remembers and by the age of 92, the four women thought that they had seen it all. But then something truly amazing happened that they never would have predicted. A black man became the President of the United States. To each of these four women it was the culmination of a lifelong journey as black people in America, and they only wished that some of their relatives could have lived to witness such a historic event. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in recognizing the full lives of Ruth Elizabeth Chatman Hammett, Gladys Ware Butler, Bernice Grimes Underwood, and Leona Costello Barnes, and in celebrating this momentous occasion, which they are sharing together as lifelong friends.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, in light of recent train derailments across the country and ongoing transportation security threats, I rise to introduce the Save Our Community from Risky Trains Act of 2016, which directs the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to find ways to the greatest extent possible to reroute trains that are carrying certain hazardous materials from selected high-threat urban areas, including the District of Columbia. Just this month, sixteen cars of a CSX freight train derailed in a densely residential neighborhood of the nation's capital, disrupting Metrorail, passenger rail, and freight rail service and putting families at risk. Among the derailed freight train cars, cars carrying sodium hydroxide, calcium chloride and ethanol--which is flammable and led to a Metrorail shutdown--spilled. The neighborhood was lucky that there were no injuries, but the continuing threat to the safety and security of urban communities is clear. In 2007, the House passed the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007, which included my amendment to protect the District and similar communities nationwide from dangerous hazardous material shipments by mandating that federal regulations and penalties be developed to increase security and safety for the shipment of these materials through high-threat urban areas. My amendment was not included in the final bill signed into law. While freight companies have begun working with DOT to voluntarily reroute the shipment of certain materials that are toxic by inhalation, poisonous by inhalation, or explosive from these communities, there is no federal law requiring them to reroute the materials. This bill would require the DOT Secretary to issue regulations to require enhanced security measures for shipments of security-sensitive materials. The bill also requires railroad carriers to use the most secure route and storage pattern to avoid moving certain hazardous materials by rail through selected high-threat urban areas. These security sensitive materials include a highway route-controlled quantity of a Class 7 (radioactive) material; more than 25 kilograms of a division 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3 explosive; more than one liter per package of a material poisonous by inhalation; shipment in other than a bulk packaging of 2,268 kilograms gross weight or more of one class of hazardous materials for which placarding of a vehicle, rail car, or freight container is required; and select agents or toxins regulated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. High-profile derailments in North Dakota, Virginia, West Virginia, and Canada demonstrate the need for this legislation. Ethanol, which is flammable, still travels through big cities, and even within a few blocks of the U.S. Capitol. This bill will protect our communities from the risk created by trains carrying hazardous materials. I urge support for this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett), my very good friend.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am happy to speak of my friendship with the chairman of our full committee, and I thank him for his kind words. I only hope he will come to where the two past immediate Republican chairs of the committee-- former-Chairman Davis and former-Chairman Darrell Issa--have come and, that is, to support budget autonomy for the District of Columbia. I rise in strong opposition to this bill. This bill, that would repeal a law approved by 83 percent of the District of Columbia voters, would nullify a court ruling and would permanently take away the authority of the 700,000 D.C. citizens and their elected officials to spend their local funds without congressional approval. This bill manages to be unprincipled and impractical at the same time. It is profoundly undemocratic for any Member of Congress in the 21st century to declare that he has authority over any other jurisdiction except his own. It also would harm the finances and operations of the District of Columbia. As a matter of fact, the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act is already in effect. The District Council has begun the process of passing its first local budget without the assistance of Federal overseers. Therefore, this bill would be the most significant reduction in the District's authority to govern itself since Congress granted the District limited home rule in 1973. Now, as a lawyer myself, I am the first to concede that lawyers differ about the validity of the Budget Autonomy Act, even when the District was in the process of enacting it. What is indisputable, though, Mr. Speaker, is that the Budget Autonomy Act is now law; the Budget Autonomy Act has been litigated; and there is only one judicial opinion in effect. In March, the D.C. Superior Court upheld the Budget Autonomy Act. Do you believe in the rule of law? It upheld the Budget Autonomy Act. No appeal was filed, and the court ordered D.C. officials to implement it. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia then evaluated each and every legal and constitutional argument you will hear brought forward today about whether the Budget Autonomy Act violates the U.S. Constitution, the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, the Federal Antideficiency Act, and the Federal Budget and Accounting Act. All of that, every last one of it, every last provision has been litigated. The House leadership made the very same arguments in an amicus brief they filed. There are a whole gang of Members anxious to see that this one jurisdiction can't handle its own money. The court, nevertheless, found--indeed, disposed of--all of these arguments. Specifically, the court upheld the Budget Autonomy Act and held that the Home Rule Act preserved the then-existing 1973 budget process, but did not--and this is essential here--did not prohibit the District from changing the local process in the future. The charter does not. The charter is like the Constitution. Congress knew how to say: Don't change budget matters discussed in this document. It did not do so. So it had to be interpreted, and it was interpreted by the District. The Senate of the United States, at the time of the Home Rule Act, passed budget autonomy for the District of Columbia. So you can cite the Diggs Compromise all you want to. The compromise was that budget control now is in the hands of the Congress. But you will note they have left room in the charter for budget control to come from the District. That was the compromise. There was no compromise that said that the District can never have any jurisdiction, any final say, over its local budget. This is, after all, the country that went to war over taxation without representation. Imagine saying: you folks, you can raise all the money you want to; but it doesn't mean anything unless the Congress of the United States passes your budget. The District followed the charter procedure that was in the Diggs budget to pass the Budget Autonomy Act. And as the court noted, Congress had the authority to pass a disapproval resolution while the referendum was in the Congress for 30 days but this Congress did not disapprove it. The Federal courts also have evaluated the validity of the Budget Autonomy Act. A Federal district court, indeed, did find the act to be invalid. But then look at what the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia did. After receiving briefs, reading them hopefully and hearing oral argument, the higher court, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, vacated the district court decision altogether, meaning that that initial decision against the Budget Autonomy Act had no force or effect. Instead of issuing a decision on the merits or sending the case back to the lower Federal court, the Federal appeals court, without explanation, simply remanded the case to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, which then issued the only existing court ruling on the validity of the D.C. Budget Autonomy Act. Is there a rational reason for opposition to budget autonomy? After all, budget autonomy is not statehood, it is not independence, it doesn't take away any of your much-vaunted power. The D.C. budget autonomy act has no effect, indeed, on congressional authority over the District. Under the Budget Autonomy Act, the D.C. Council must transmit the local D.C. budget to Congress for a review period before that budget would take effect, like all other D.C. legislation under the Home Rule Act, and that is about to happen, as I speak. During the review period Congress can use expedited procedures to disapprove the budget. You see, what the District was doing here was not committing revolution. It was using the procedures in place in order to gain greater control over its own local budget. In addition, under the U.S. Constitution, Congress has total legislative authority over the District. Congress can legislate on any District matter at any time, but Congress can also delegate any or all of its legislative authority over the District, and it can take back any delegated authority at any time. In 1973, under the Home Rule Act, Congress did just that. It delegated most of its authority, its legislative authority over the District to an elected local government. Congress can delegate more or it can delegate less authority than provided in the Home Rule Act. It can repeal the Home Rule Act at any time. It can even abolish the government of the District of Columbia. My friends, I ask you: Is that enough authority for you? Over 700,000 American citizens who are not your constituents, is that enough for you? Is that enough power? Why is that not enough to satisfy any Congress of the United States? Until this Congress, Democrats were not alone in supporting budget autonomy. President George W. Bush supported D.C. budget autonomy. The Republican-controlled Senate passed a budget autonomy bill by unanimous consent in 2003. The last two Republican chairmen, of whom I spoke today as I began to speak myself, who had the jurisdiction that Chairman Chaffetz now has--Tom Davis and Darrell Issa--actually fought for, not simply supported, but fought for budget autonomy. I think they recognized that this is a set of principles we have in common. I always thought that local control was a cardinal principle of the Republican Party. Even the Republicans' own witnesses at the hearing on this bill who took a position on the policy of budget autonomy--and that was most of them--supported budget action. Control over the dollars raised by local taxpayers is a much-cited principle of congressional Republicans, and it happens to be central to our form of government as held by Democrats and Republicans. The exalted status of local control for Republicans, though, keeps being announced as if we need to be retaught. The Republicans did so again in their recently released budget. I quote you only one sentence: ``We are humble enough,'' Republicans said, ``to admit that the Federal Government does not have all the answers.'' That was their latest abeyance to local control for every single American jurisdiction, except the American jurisdiction that happens to be the capital of the United States. Beyond this core principle, budget autonomy has practical benefits that I don't see how any Member of Congress can ignore. In a recent amicus brief filed by former Congressman Davis: ``The benefits of budget autonomy for the District are numerous, real, and much needed. There is no drawback.'' One of the other signatories of the brief was Alice Rivlin, a former Director of the Congressional Budget Office, also a former Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. It is with some irony and real pain that I see come to this floor even to speak against this bill Members whose budgets are not as large as the budget of the District of Columbia, even though they come from entire, big States. The District's budget is bigger than the budgets of 14 States. We raise that money ourselves. The District raises more than $7 billion in local funds. The District contributes more Federal taxes to the Treasury of the United States than 22 States. The District of Columbia is number one in federal taxes per capita paid to the Federal Government, and the District is in better financial shape than most cities and States in the United States, with a rainy day fund of $2.17 billion on a total budget of $13.4 billion. Budget autonomy will make the District--which, after all, has no State to fall back on--even stronger. How? Budget autonomy gives the District what every other local government in the United States enjoys: lower borrowing costs on Wall Street. Imagine having to do what the District has to do: pay a penalty because your budget has to come to a Congress that knows nothing of your city or your budget, and they get to vote on it even though your own Member does not. D.C. will also have improved agency operations, and in D.C.'s case, the removal of the threat of Federal Government shutdowns, shutting down the entire D.C. government just because Members of Congress can't figure out what to do about the Federal Government. The Federal Government has benefits, too. Congress would no longer waste time on a budget it never amends. So budget autonomy has no downside. I am trying to figure out why anybody would want to deal with my budget. Heavens. Don't Members have enough to do? Congress maintains total legislative control over the District, with all the Federal financial controls in place. Congress has nothing to lose, can step in at anytime they don't like it. We are not asking for very much. It is for some loosening of Congressional control. So, for example, we would not have to pay more when we borrow on Wall Street because we are seen as involved in a two-step budgetary process; one, I might add, that is far more problematic, the Federal process, than the other, the local process. It also is ironic to note that Congress granted D.C. budget autonomy during its early years. Yesterday the Committee on Rules prevented my amendment to make the text of the Budget Autonomy Act Federal law from getting a vote. Today the appropriations subcommittee passed an appropriation rider containing the text of the very bill that is before us on this floor right now. That makes 2 days, 2 identical provisions. Just in case-- just in case anybody would think that Republicans don't mean it, they are doing it twice. What do they need? An insurance policy of identical language in case, God forbid, the Senate does not pass this bill? I predict that the Senate won't pass this bill. So it is on you, Members of the House of Representatives, the people's House, to take the lead in denying for the people who live in your Nation's Capital the same control over their local budget that you, yourselves, hold so dear. You can stand on what you do today, but you won't stand up straight because what you do today, if you vote to take away our budget autonomy bill, will not be standing on principle. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my good friend from New York State for the way she has always understood and championed with respect to the District of Columbia, which also happens to be the capital of the United States. But, as she said, it is more than the Capitol and this building. It is where almost 700,000 Americans live. Mr. Speaker, I must strongly oppose that portion of the bill providing for consideration of H.R. 5233. Understand the spectacle we have ongoing here. A strong Republican House is actively sponsoring a bill that repeals a local law, a local law that in this case authorizes the District of Columbia government to spend its own local funds without congressional approval. Who do the Republicans think they are, that the people I represent should ask for their approval to spend, and to process funds that they had nothing to do with raising? Understand, no Federal funds are involved, not one penny, but those pennies, over $7 billion--and I want people who come to the floor to tell me if their State raises $7 billion on its own. Over $7 billion. These are our pennies. Not a cent of Federal money is even implicated. Let's go back to Republican principles to understand what is happening on this floor today because it is going to happen twice. My Republican friends propose in this rule--these are the same friends who despise the Federal reach, despise it so much that every year they try to give back what have long been Federal matters to the States, like the Department of Education. Need I go through the laundry list? The one thing they stand for in this Congress and have stood for throughout human time is that they prefer that power over the people be exercised at the State and local level. That is what they stand for. There are not many things that you can say a particular party stands for. Local control is certainly their cardinal principle. But look what they are doing this afternoon. They are doubling down. That is not just a matter of emphasis. That means double bills. They are doubling down to use the awesome power of the Federal Government against a local district. If you will excuse me, I regard that as very un-Republican. We are talking about two provisions--not just the rule before us-- that use identical language, as if to say, you know, we really mean it, District of Columbia, because we are going to do it twice. We want to be doubly sure that we keep this local district from enforcing its own local budget. So what is the point of this bill if they are doing it twice? This bill is a pretense. It is solely designed to lay the predicate for another action that has occurred this very morning in the Committee on Appropriations. How coincidental. I sat through a Committee on Appropriations markup where a rider, using the very same language that is proposed through this rule, and that rider was indeed passed by the House appropriations subcommittee. Heavens. I wonder if in the history of the House of Representatives we have ever had this Congress or the Congress of the United States to be so threatened by what a local jurisdiction would do that it proposes not one bill, but two, to keep that local jurisdiction from proceeding. We are not seceding from the United States. We are simply trying to spend our own money. So here we have a bill twice over because the--appropriations bill contains the same language, understand, despite another of their rules that prohibits legislating on an appropriations bill. The Republican leadership included the text of H.R. 5233 in the appropriations bill for what appears to be a very good reason. They recognize that that is the only chance they have of enacting the text of the rule before you, and that is to do so in an appropriations bill. So they are doing it twice for good measure, but the only way it is going to pass is attaching it to some must-pass bill. The Senate--and I say this on this floor--does not have the votes to pass H.R. 5233 itself. And even if it did, the President of the United States, who has long supported budget autonomy, put it in his own budgets, has said he would veto it. The Executive Statement of Administration Policy that came out yesterday indicated so. This may be news to some Members of this body, but I am the only Member of Congress who was elected by the almost 700,000 American citizens who live in the District of Columbia, and my constituents are the only American citizens who are affected by this bill. You might be able to understand the anger of my constituents if you knew these numbers. The people I represent pay more taxes than 22 States pay. Or you want another one that would make you understand the anger of my constituents? They are number one per capita in the Federal taxes paid to support their homeland, highest taxes per capita in the United States. And yet this very day, twice--first with respect to this rule, then with respect to the bill--every single Member of Congress will get a vote on this bill solely concerning the District of Columbia except the Member of Congress who represents the District of Columbia and is elected to represent them. If you have never felt like a despot before, I hope that side of the aisle understands how it feels and what it looks like. The Republican leadership has claimed that it is committed to letting the House work its will on legislation. However, yesterday, the Rules Committee, on a party-line vote, prevented me from offering my amendment to this bill to the House floor. What are you afraid of, if my amendment comes to the House floor that says, ``Congress, you do it; you grant D.C. budget autonomy''? Are you afraid you can't do it? Sure you can do it. Or, at least let us do it. Give D.C. some respect. My amendment was the only chance for D.C. residents to have a say on the bill during floor consideration. So even though you could have, obviously, and would have defeated my amendment to say, ``You do it, you grant us budget autonomy,'' what in the world kept you from allowing us the respect of bringing that amendment to counter what you are doing today, particularly knowing that we can't counter what you are doing today? My amendment, of course, would have called the question on whether Members support or oppose local control of local jurisdictions over their own budget. Do Members oppose budget autonomy because the District initiated it? Or do they actually want to toss their own local control principles out of the Capitol window through a vote requiring Federal approval of local funds?

Ms. NORTON. My amendment would have made the text of D.C.'s Local Budget Autonomy Act Federal law. It would have simply said, look, if you don't like what the District did, you do it. We would have lost. But you would at least have given to us the respect that we are entitled to as American citizens--afraid even to do that. The Local Budget Autonomy Act is already law. The District government has begun to implement it, and I applaud them for doing so. When you are up against a despotic House of Representatives, the only way to proceed in a democracy is to move on your own, or else they will say: See, we waited them out and there is nothing they can do. There is only one of them against all of us. Only one court opinion has, in fact, upheld the Budget Autonomy Act, though the good Member on the other side implied that this was a lawless act. Well, let me tell you what the court said, without going through all of it: Forthwith, enforce all provisions of the Local Budget Autonomy Act of 2012. That is the law. Who is being lawless, who is being unprincipled is any majority that would want to be involved with the local funds of any American jurisdiction. When Members cast their vote today on the bill, they will be voting on a bill to require Congress to approve a local budget. How un- Republican. And worse, undemocratic.

Ms. NORTON. My good friend Mr. Meadows speaks as if he didn't speak up for the Congress of the United States with its awesome power, then Congress would be stripped of its power by the District of Columbia-- please. If there is any concern here about this bill, the one thing my good friend should not do is to base it on what lawyers say. The latest and most definitive, on what lawyers say is a court of law. I want to indicate what happened, because the matter was first in the Federal district court, then appealed to the Federal court of appeals. The Federal court of appeals heard oral argument and received briefs. It looked at this--and we don't know why--but they sent it to a local D.C. court. That court heard at every single argument Mr. Meadows has raised and found for the District of Columbia. And that is the definitive word on the law, unless what he is saying is: Je suis the law, or, I am the law. Well, maybe you are, but you are the kind of law that led the Framers to rebel against England. No respect for local law. You speak of the Diggs Compromise. What you didn't say is that some compromise had to be reached because the Senate, in its home rule bill, gave the district control over its local budget. So what we say, what our lawyers say, is that compromise did leave some room in the charter--which does not specifically say that budget autonomy is denied to the District; and they could have said it, but they didn't--and the compromise was to leave some room at such point as it became relevant to step up and claim the right to process and enforce their own local budget. My good friend managing the bill on that side dares reach back to the 1990s. Yes, the District got into trouble. My congratulations to the District of Columbia as the only city which, for 200 years, carried State functions. And yes, in the 1990s, it became too much; and yes, the city had a serious financial crisis. So if you want to go back two decades, also come forward, because at this time, the District has perhaps the strongest economy in the United States of America. How many of you have surpluses? How many of you have anything to brag about in terms of the economy of your district? Have you looked at what is happening in the District of Columbia? You can see the building going on. You can see the increase in our population. So yes, we have had hard times, and I am sure you have, but I am sure that there was a whole lot less reason for your hard times than for ours. I am asking you to think about your own principles of local control and try to justify taking local control from the District, but particularly to justify taking local control over our own money. That is what the Framers went to war about. Somebody somewhere was trying to tell them about taxes having to do with their own local funds. I don't know if that spirit still lives on that side of the aisle, but it still lives in the District of Columbia. This is our money. We are going to keep going at it until you have nothing to say about funds raised in a jurisdiction not your own. My constituents cannot hold you accountable because they cannot vote for you. Well, sir, they have voted for me; and what I say today represents what they believe and what they will never give up, and that is the right to control their own local laws and, and above all, their own local funds raised from their own local taxpayers.