Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, Congress has a lot on its plate, and it is trying its best to pursue it. I am pleased to hear that we may be close to an agreement on the budget, but with all we have to do with respect to the economy, the environment, income inequality, and unemployment insurance, I think the public would be concerned when the Congress goes off course and no longer involves itself only in the Nation's business but interferes with the business of local jurisdictions. One of the cardinal principles of our Nation is, of course, what is local is local and not for the Federal Government. This afternoon, I want to speak about three issues where the Nation has been drawn into local affairs by the Congress, much against the bipartisan principles on both sides of this Chamber and of the Senate as well. One issue involved the shutdown of a local government. Another involved something, perhaps, even more sacred: the autonomy every local government demands over its local funds and, only yesterday, the near- sacred autonomy over the local laws of a local jurisdiction. Yesterday, there was a hearing. I would not have objected to the hearing. It was about a very controversial subject, and I happened to be on the other side of the majority, but it is a subject that divides the Nation, and it deserves to be aired. It had to do with what looked to be re-codifying and, perhaps, also adding some provisions on reproductive choice by Members of the majority who oppose abortion in all of its forms, as do many of the American people. Of course, we have a Supreme Court decision that has ruled on abortion. Nevertheless, there continues to be legislation and interest in this issue here. Yesterday's hearing was a little curious because, for the most part, the issues have long been addressed by the Congress in appropriations bills. Nobody talks about the so-called Hyde amendment anymore because that has to do with Federal funds for access to abortion. That is no longer much contested. There is a so-called Helms amendment, which denies access to safe abortion care with U.S.-paid funds in other parts of the world; codifying that. There were some add-ons that you typically might expect from the subcommittee for the Affordable Care Act; to make sure that federal civil servants and the military do not have access to abortion, etc. I went to the hearing. Frankly, I found it very interesting, the press was interested in only--at least as I read this morning--largely interested in only one matter. That had to do with my request to testify on what was really a minor section of this bill. It was very important to us, but very minor in the bill. It is a section that would codify something, again, that the appropriators already have done, that is, to keep D.C. from spending its own local funds on abortions for low-income women. Remember, I just said the Hyde amendment keeps us from spending Federal funds. Note that I am talking only about local funds. In case you think we are an outlier here, 17 States provide local funds for abortions for their poor women because states and localities cannot spend Federal funds. We only want what they have. Those 17 States, by the way, include Alaska, Arizona, Montana--and I won't go on, but you can see that they may be States of various political views that simply don't want low-income women to be left out of the reproductive choice guaranteed by the Supreme Court's decision regarding abortion. What the press was most interested in was not the major portions of the bill but the fact that Chairman Trent Franks included a D.C. provision in his bill, a provision that says though these are D.C.'s local funds--$8 billion, we are proud to say--raised by local taxpayers, our businesses and our residents, 100 percent of it local funds--that we, and we alone, in the United States must accept the dictates from the Congress of the United States about where we may spend our own local funds when some of its Members disagree, as I am sure they would disagree with the 17 States who spend their local funds in the very same way. Since my own district was the only district mentioned in the bill, I did what any red-blooded Member of Congress would do. I wrote a respectful letter saying, as a courtesy from one Member to another, may I testify for a few minutes with respect to the D.C. provision? I wrote that letter the moment I heard that this matter was to come forward for a hearing. It was hand-delivered to Chairman Franks' office. I heard no response. My counsel, Brad Truding, called repeatedly the next day. Frankly, I never heard a response until our office called. We called the ranking member, Jerry Nadler, who did tell us that he heard a response, and that I was to be denied the right to testify on a provision involving my own district. That is what has captured the press, not the many underlying issues, some of which I have just reiterated, of the bill itself, because one thing that captures the public imagination is discourtesy here in this Congress. I didn't receive a courtesy of a reply, and I didn't receive the courtesy of testifying with respect to a provision affecting my district. Yet, Members are routinely offered the right to testify, usually before the named witnesses, just as a courtesy. In addition, even though you see us go at one another on this floor, if we are discourteous on the floor, they will take down our words and we will have to come to the well of the House and explain ourselves. That is how important courtesy is. You can't have 440 Members without that kind of courtesy. I don't even know Chairman Franks. I don't think he meant any personal discourtesy to me. I am sure of that, as I sat in the hearing and he explained himself and welcomed me to the hearing, it was clear that he didn't mean any personal discourtesy. What he did, however, was to exercise discourtesy from one Member to another Member, and he did so on a matter of some importance. There is no Member of this body who would sanction an attack on her local jurisdiction without getting up to protest it. I may not be able to vote on this bill when it comes to the floor, but should I not be able to speak on the matter? D.C. matters come to this floor time and again, and all I can do is talk. If there is any decency in this body, surely nobody would shut me up. There is no Member of the Senate of the United States who represents the 640,000 residents of D.C., who pay taxes to the federal government and have gone to war each and every time since the Nation was created. There is only one Member. She is a delegate. She has no vote on this floor. She only can vote in committee. All she can do is speak. In our democracy, who would want to say you cannot even speak? That is what happened yesterday. As a result, important issues--certainly, important to the committee regarding abortion--were not even the focus of the media attention. They just flew from their attention span because of the denial of a Member the right to speak on a provision that affected only her jurisdiction. I am clear on where I stand on reproductive freedom, and I oppose that bill in its entirely. Every Member of the House knows that bill will never see the light of day on the other side of the Congress, in the Senate, and will never become law. It is a message bill. That is all right. Both sides, when they capture the Congress, participate in message bills. The problem with the majority in the House today is that it only does message bills. That is why this Congress has now gone down as the Congress that was the least productive in American history, because all it did was message bills. Well, it is one thing to have a message bill on the United States of America. It is another to have a message bill that involves a message pertaining to a local jurisdiction where the local jurisdiction has no voice. No vote, no voice. The bill managed to be an affront on two counts. It denies our low- income women the right to the reproductive choice that they would have if D.C. could pay for their reproductive choices, as 17 different States do, and it violated the very principle of local government, which was at the root of the American Revolution. In one of the great contortions in legislation, the bill seems to have recognized that you cannot really legislate for a local jurisdiction. So it redefines the District of Columbia government as a part of the Federal Government for purposes of abortion. Imagine having your city and your county redefined as now a part of the United States Government in order to pass a bill you do not want. That was a concession in itself against the bill, that they had to redefine us out of who we are into who this Nation is. That kind of contortion undercut any possible legitimacy for the bill. This is the kind of thing that led to the war on women last Congress. You see what effect that had. The Republicans want to start out again with the Member who cannot fight back in the way they do because she doesn't have a vote on this floor by denying her even the right to speak on a bill affecting her jurisdiction. Go at it. We will not let it rest. We all witnesses this same local jurisdiction, the District of Columbia, now one of the most successful local jurisdictions in the United States, that raised $8 billion on our own. We are building everywhere. We added 50,000 people in the last census. Yet, this jurisdiction faced the shutdown in the just-past infamous shutdown of the Federal Government. Well, the public will say, That can't be. They shut down the Federal Government. As a matter of fact, the Congress makes the District of Columbia bring its $8 billion local budget right here, to sign off on it, before we can spend our own local funds. You are hearing the very definition of autocracy, not democracy. When money that the Congress has nothing to do with has to come before this Chamber in any form or fashion, that can lead to catastrophe--and it almost did, because the Congress had gotten to not one bit of the one business it has to do every single year, and that is pass bills for appropriations for its own government. They hadn't done one. Among those, tucked into one of its bills was the independent jurisdiction of the District of Columbia. The mayor was put to using contingency funds to keep the city open during those 16 days. Normally, he has to do the same shutdown preparation that OPM, the Department of Education, or the Department of Transportation has to do. Instead, he used his contingency funds. The problem is he was running out of contingency funds. There were Members of this body that helped me finally in negotiations with the administration, with our Republican colleagues, and of course, with the Democrats in the Senate. I thank Chairman Darrell Issa, who chairs the Oversight and Government Reform Committee with jurisdiction, among other things, over the District of Columbia. I thank majority leader, Eric Cantor, a member of this regional delegation, for his efforts as well. There were just as many Republicans and Democrats in the Senate who were helpful, and others whom I have not named, who were helpful here. But it took a three-way negotiation to get us out of that; and the reason that negotiation was important is that we are waiting, as I speak, to see whether or not there is going to be another government shutdown now. I am hopeful about that because we are told that we may have a delay for a few days. The prospect is there won't be another shutdown; but we didn't know that, then, so I had to negotiate for something that the Federal agencies do not yet have. They are now being run on what is called a ``continuing resolution'' based on last year's appropriation, 2013 funds. Imagine if we had had to do that, run a big city on funds from last year instead of your appropriated funds for this year. That could result in violation of contracts, all kinds of upheavals in your city. Fortunately, I was able to negotiate a bill that would keep us open for the rest of the year, that is, the fiscal year. The Federal Government still has to do that for its own agencies. Why in the world would anybody want any local jurisdiction to be caught up in that federal mess? Fortunately, there is no disagreement on this. I don't want to leave the impression that this is a matter of great contention. The Senate has what we call ``shutdown avoidance language'' for the Nation's Capital in its D.C. appropriations bill. The President's budget had such language too. My own colleagues here, Mr. Issa, for example, is for anti-shutdown language. The appropriators have indicated the very same. I am hoping that as the appropriation bill passes--sorry--comes to the floor, it will have that shutdown avoidance language in it. Indeed, I am hoping it will have budget autonomy in it. The President's budget had budget autonomy language. The Senate appropriations now has budget autonomy in it. Hasn't the time come to say to the Nation's Capital, the residents who raise their own money here in the District of Columbia, that if you raise it, you can spend it, and the Congress does not have to be a pass-through for you? Isn't it time to say that, at least, because Wall Street charges D.C. a penalty because, after it passes its balanced budget, the city has to come to the Congress, which passes no balanced budgets. Any time somebody else has to look at your budget, there is an additional layer. You pay for the extra layer because it should not be there and is not there for any other jurisdiction. If all of this seems strange and against American traditions, imagine legislation coming here. That one, the last one I want to discuss is Kafkaesque in the extreme. The District of Columbia passes a bill, it is supposed to lay over here before it can take effect for 30 legislative, not calendar, days, and 60 for criminal matters, except our legislative days are far and few between. So bills have to lay over here long past a 30-day period, usually for at least 3 calendar months. Now, you are running a big city. Let me give you one of the more laughable examples that is not atypical, but I give it to you because you can see that this is the kind of subject matter that would never interest the Congress. The congressional review, or layover, period for the change that the District made in its laws to exchange the word ``handicap'' for ``disability'' took 9 months. It took 9 months. In order to keep legislation from lapsing, the District has to pass temporary legislation and then another extension of legislation. And it has to keep passing various kinds of temporary bills of its final bills until it finally gets through these review days. The council estimates that about 65 percent, up to 65 percent, of the bills it passes could be eliminated were it not for this make-work procedure. Now, this isn't painless. The council says it takes 5,000 employee- hours and 160,000 sheets of paper per Council period; and you'd better be precise, because if you miss one of these periods, and there are usually three different periods during which these bills pass until you get to the 30 legislative days, the bill could lapse, and then you would have to start all over again. That would be bad enough if Congress had a reason for requiring these bills to come here. Congress never looks at these bills. If there is something that the Council of the District of Columbia does that the Congress thinks it shouldn't do, it knows exactly what to do, at least in its own view. Why bother with introducing a bill here, having it come to the floor, and doing the same thing in the Senate? Why not simply try to attach your objection or amendment to something else? So the Congress simply uses the appropriation bills and attaches whatever it wants to overturn. At the moment, there is only one such matter and that is the abortion rider; and it simply tucks that into another bill. On only three occasions has the Congress ever used the review, or layover period, to overturn a D.C. law: 1979, 1981, and 1991. And two of those directly involved Federal interests, so Congress was within its rights. In fact, if the truth be told, the District was not trying to defy the Federal Government. In fact, I would have been with the Congress on this because Federal interests were involved on two of them. The District mistook, was mistaken in the extent to where there was a Federal interest involved. So those were not even attempts to try to challenge the Federal Government. Those were mistakes. Had I been here at the time, I would have tried to correct them before they got very far by going to the District before they ever got here. In any case, you have a Sisyphus-like process, keep rolling up the hill, keep spending all that money, keep exerting all those employee- hours, for a process that Congress has long abandoned and pays no attention to. My bill says to a Congress which regularly passes paperwork-reduction bills, this is a classic example of where it is needed. I do not believe there is the slightest opposition here. It is a matter of inertia. I am trying to make it rise above the ground where it has laid since I have been introducing this bill. I don't believe for a moment that there is a single Member that wishes the District, or any other jurisdiction, or any part of this government, to engage in such a labor-intensive, costly process, even if it had an outcome, but particularly one that the Congress itself abandoned and has abandoned into disuse. So, Madam Speaker, I brought these matters of local concern to the floor today because they are, I think, every last one of them, matters about which most Members are unaware, and for good reason. Members are dealing with their own districts and with the Nation's business. They really don't have any reason to care about whether or not the District spends its local money one way or the other, about what laws it has passed, and if it is shut down. In the case of D.C. bills only three out of 4,500 D.C. bills have been overturned. It has abandoned one of these processes altogether. The District had a budget autonomy referendum that, technically, is law. It is in some danger, so I am trying still to get budget autonomy through the Congress and to the President. I can not believe that, with many conservative Members of this House who believe in local matters for local folks, that I would not have support here. I recognize that abortion is a controversial issue, and I have the deepest respect for those who disagree with me on that issue; but I think most Members would agree that that is a matter for local jurisdictions to decide. Wherever we stand on the Nation's business, we are as one on local principles. Local matters are for local jurisdictions. That cannot be your principle for every jurisdiction in the United States except the District of Columbia. The matter of democracy, which we have tried to spread throughout the world, cannot be a matter for every nation on the face of this Earth except the Nation's Capital. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the District of Columbia Paperwork Reduction Act, to eliminate the wasteful congressional review process for legislation passed by the District of Columbia Council and to align longtime congressional practice and the law. The congressional review process for D.C. bills provides no benefit to Congress, but imposes substantial costs (in time and money) on the District. Indeed, Congress effectively abandoned the congressional review process as a mechanism for overturning D.C. legislation twenty-three years ago, yet it still requires the D.C. Council to use Kafkaesque make-work procedures to comply with the abandoned congressional review process established by the Home Rule Act of 1973. The bill would eliminate the congressional review process for legislation passed by the D.C. Council. Congress would lose no authority it currently exercises because, even upon enactment of my bill, Congress would retain its authority under clause 17 of section 8 of article I of the U.S. Constitution to amend or overturn any D.C. legislation at any time. The congressional review process (30 days for civil bills and 60 days for criminal bills) includes only those days when both houses of Congress are in session, delaying D.C. bills from becoming law, often for many months. The delay forces the D.C. Council to pass most bills several times, using a cumbersome and complicated process to ensure that the operations of this large and rapidly changing city continue uninterrupted, or in the alternative, the lapse of the bill before it becomes final. The review period, based on legislative, not calendar, days means, for example, that a 30-day period usually lasts three calendar months and often much longer because of congressional recesses. The congressional review period for a bill that changed the word ``handicap'' to ``disability'' lasted nine months. The Council estimates that 50-65 percent of the bills the Council passes could be eliminated if the review period did not exist. To ensure predictability, the Council often must pass the same legislation in three forms--emergency (in effect for 90 days), temporary (in effect for 225 days) and permanent. Moreover, the Council has to carefully track the days Congress is in session for each piece of legislation it passes to avoid gaps and to determine when the bills have taken effect. The Council estimates that it could save 5,000 employee-hours and 160,000 sheets of paper per Council period if the review period were eliminated. My bill would do no more than align the Home Rule Act with congressional practice over the last twenty-three years. Since the Home Rule Act, of the more than 4,500 legislative acts transmitted to Congress, only three resolutions disapproving D.C. legislation have been enacted--in 1979, 1981, and 1991--and two of those mistakenly involved federal interests in the Height Act and the location of chanceries. Placing a congressional hold on 4,500 D.C. bills has not only proven unnecessary, but also a waste of money and time for both the District and Congress. Instead of using the congressional review process to overturn D.C. legislation, Congress has preferred to use appropriations riders. It is particularly unfair to require the D.C. Council to engage in a labor-intensive and costly process that Congress has itself long ago abandoned. My bill would only eliminate the automatic hold placed on D.C. legislation and the need for the D.C. Council to use a process initially passed for the convenience of Congress, but one that Congress has since eliminated in all but law. The bill would promote efficiency and cost savings for the District, and carry out a policy stressed by Congress of eliminating needless paperwork and make-work redundancy. I urge my colleagues to support this good-government measure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who is so honorably following the great example of his predecessor Bill Gray in leading us today in the House and for all of the work that he has done in the House. I want to thank the Congressional Black Caucus and particularly our chairman, Marcia Fudge, who led us on an exhausting but exhilarating trip to South Africa just this week. I want to thank the CBC--before I ever thought about coming to Congress--for their decades of work which was instrumental in release and the work of Nelson Mandela. I went to South Africa earlier this week to share with South Africans their farewell to the father of their country, Madiba, the man who meant so much to millions of us, for his leadership throughout the world. And I went because, for me, he was a freedom-defining leader. I knew Nelson Mandela before I met him. I was a member of the Free South Africa Movement that was particularly active here in the District of Columbia, the movement led by TransAfrica which became synonymous with Free Mandela. Mr. Speaker, it was almost 30 years ago that four of us went into the South African Embassy--Randall Robinson; the head of TransAfrica, Dr. Mary Berry; my own predecessor, former Congressman Walter Fauntroy and I--who secured an appointment with the ambassador of South Africa, I must say, under false pretenses because we didn't intend to come out. However, in those first arrests, we could not have imagined the cascade of events that followed. We did not imagine that from all over the country people would come to be arrested to free Mandela. Mr. Speaker, perhaps least of all did I imagine that on his 95th birthday we would have a commemoration where the Democratic and the Republican leaders of this House would gather to celebrate Mandela's 95th birthday. If you can imagine the life of Nelson Mandela, there is so much about that life that was unimaginable. And there are so many people to thank tonight because as I think about all of those who are connected with Mandela--because there are millions of them--I hope we do not forget those who led this movement, that we do not forget Bill Gray who was the sponsor of the sanctions bill and succeeded in overriding a veto to get it through the Congress of the United States. I hope we do not forget TransAfrica, which invented the struggle for freedom for Mandela, or Ron Dellums or former Senator Mike Lugar, who were sponsors of the bill. I hope we do not forget the hundreds of thousands who lobbied and picketed their State legislatures to divest pension funds from South Africa. It is very difficult to imagine that without collective action, Mandela would have been free to free his country. Most of all, Mr. Speaker, tonight we thank Nelson Mandela himself. How do you thank a man for making the highest and best use of his best years, by spending them--almost 30 years--incarcerated and then coming out to peacefully and ever so gently lead his fellow South Africans to lay down their grievances--just as Martin Luther King said, ``Lay down your arms''--laid down their grievances, rose above their painful scars, their own years of suffering, and to somehow march with him into a new multiracial South Africa. It is a South Africa which today, like Madiba, its great leader, is an example for the rest of the world. Much of the rest of the world today I hope remembers Madiba not only for what his years of sacrifice meant but for how he used those years to bring peace in the last place where peace was expected. I thank the gentleman for leading us tonight.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from New York for yielding. I don't see how my colleagues can go home for Christmas leaving their constituents who are unemployed with no Christmas at all. I understand this bill to be important for its elimination of some sequestration. That is a small favor considering that sequestration may be the only bill nobody wanted that nevertheless prevailed. But the callous treatment of the unemployed is unforgiveable, especially at this season. I am really outraged by the notion of some of my colleagues about the incentive to remain on unemployment insurance, when the benefits per week have gone down one-third across the States. We are exposing those who have worked and paid into unemployment insurance to more hard times, but we are also exposing our economy, itself, because the loss of unemployment insurance means another loss of 300,000 jobs. This bill is counterproductive. It is counterintuitive. It spoils an otherwise acceptable bill. It makes a mockery of Christmas.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Reducing Long- Term Unemployment Act, to address one of the lingering workforce tragedies resulting from today's economy--our long-term unemployed--and to spur economic growth. While millions of Americans are unemployed, my bill targets those particularly hard hit by unemployment. In November 2013, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was 4.1 million, which accounted for 37.3 percent of the total unemployed population. To make matters even worse, the unemployed now face employment discrimination and employers are reluctant to hire the long-term unemployed because of the length of their unemployment. Therefore, my bill provides a necessary incentive--a $5,000 tax credit for employers against their payroll tax liability for each (net) new long-term unemployed person they hire. The tax credit is large enough to give employers an incentive to increase hiring and wages, which would inject demand into the economy. The credit would be available to the broadest base of employers because every employer--government, non-profit and for-profit--pays payroll taxes, and employers could claim the credit on a quarterly rather than annual basis. According to the independent, non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the proposal would ``increase both output and employment,'' through four mechanisms: (1) with lower employment costs, employers would reduce the costs of their products and services, which, in turn, would first boost sales and then hiring and hours worked; (2) employers would pass on some of the tax savings to employees in the form of higher wages or other compensation, which, in turn, would increase employees' purchasing power; (3) higher profits would lead to higher stock prices for public companies, increasing shareholders' wealth and therefore their willingness to spend; and (4) with lower employment costs, employers would increase hiring. The bill has safeguards to prevent employers from gaming the system, including denying a credit to an employer that fires one employee and hires a replacement. For some time, it has been clear that policies to address today's unusually stubborn unemployment need to be targeted in order to be effective. Without significant targeting, the long-term unemployed are in danger of becoming permanently unemployed. This group deserves better. The long-term unemployed are also at risk for losing their unemployment benefits without an extension of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program before December 28, 2013. I ask the House of Representatives to support this bill because it targets this too-often neglected group of Americans.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Transit Parity Act of 2013. The bill will extend federal tax benefits for mass transit and parking at current levels for one year. There is currently a permanent provision providing federal tax benefits for parking and mass transit; however, the mass transit benefit is funded at half the level of the parking benefit. The mass transit benefit was temporarily raised this year, but with cuts to the mass transit benefit set to occur on January 1, 2014, impacts will be felt throughout this region and the country. Millions of people commute in and out of cities every day, bolstering their economies and improving the overall wellbeing of the country, with this region as a prime example. Why would we want to encourage people to drive rather than use mass transit? At the very least, there is no excuse for preferential treatment of driving. I support a permanent equalization of commuter benefits, but given the costs associated with a permanent extension, the focus of this bill is a temporary one-year extension of benefits. I will seek to bring this bill to the floor before Congress adjourns for the year. If the bill is not passed before then, I will seek retroactive equalization of benefits. The bill will continue to encourage commuters to use mass transit by equalizing tax benefits for mass transit and parking. Congress did the sensible thing when it increased the commuter benefit cap to $245 per month, the same as for parking earlier this year. Unless Congress takes action now, however, mass transit benefits will decrease by nearly 50 percent, to $130, while the benefit for parking will increase to $250. However, this bill makes federal tax benefits for mass transit and parking equal at $250 in 2014. I support a permanent equalization of commuter benefits, but given the costs associated with a permanent extension, the focus of this bill is on a one-year extension of equal benefits. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in remembering Edward Augustine Savoy, a freeman of color who held one of the highest government positions possible for an African American at the time, Chief Messenger to the Secretary of State, on the 70th anniversary of his death. Edward Augustine Savoy was a third-generation Washingtonian born to a father who was a former slave and a mother who was a teacher in Northwest Washington, D.C. in 1855. Edward Savoy's illustrious career spanned 64 years, during which he worked for 21 Secretaries of State. Through 14 presidencies he played a significant role in many of the historic events in our nation. Even though Edward Savoy never ascended higher than Chief Messenger to the State Department because of the color of his skin, Edward Savoy still managed to become a great public servant, and was well known and respected by politicians, dignitaries, and international emissaries alike. Edward Savoy began his career at the young age of 14 as page for the State Department in 1869, serving Secretary of State Hamilton Fish. In a time that was especially difficult for African Americans, Edward Savoy had a remarkable career as a public servant. Edward Savoy's intelligence, tactfulness, and remarkable memory allowed him to become a trusted employee inside the State Department, privy to confidential information, such as coming wars, yet never violated the trust placed in him. In 1914, Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan recommended Mr. Savoy for promotion and President Woodrow Wilson authorized this promotion in an executive order. President Herbert Hoover's Vice President, Charles Curtis, and two Secretaries of State, Frank Billings Kellogg and Henry Lewis Stimson, intervened to extend his federal service past mandatory retirement age. Secretary Stimson called the native Washingtonian ``indispensable.'' In 1931, a bill was introduced by Congressman Hamilton Fish III of New York asking Congress to extend the employment of Edward Augustine Savoy ``indefinitely despite his years.'' This would have been the third extension of his retirement. Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson retained Mr. Savoy as a personal assistant, paying his wages from his own paycheck. In 1933, at the age of 77, Edward Augustine Savoy retired under Secretary of State Cordell Hull, after 64 years of uninterrupted federal service in the State Department, unheard of even in today's time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 2061, the DATA Act, and I am pleased to work with the chairman as we continue to reconcile this bill with the Senate bill. The DATA Act will provide the public with information about how the government is spending its money. This will hold agencies accountable for their spending, and it will result in a more effective and efficient government. The President emphasized the importance of access to data when he issued an executive order on May 9, 2013, that requires government information to be released in ways that make it easy to find and use. The DATA Act would require government spending data to meet those same requirements through data standards issued by the Office of Management and Budget. The bill also requires that spending data be available through a single Web site. H.R. 2061 authorizes, in addition, the Recovery Act Board through the year 2017, and requires the Recovery Board to conduct a pilot project involving direct reporting of spending information from recipients of Federal money. There are a couple of issues that I hope will be resolved as the bill moves forward to the Senate. During the committee markup of this bill, Ranking Member Elijah Cummings requested that the bill be amended to address two specific concerns. One of those concerns was the need to ensure that stakeholders have an opportunity to provide feedback before OMB decides whether to extend the pilot project on recipient reporting. The other issue was the need to ensure that OMB has the option to extend all the requirements under the pilot project, or just some of the requirements, if the Director determines that is the best course. Just as the chairman led H.R. 2061 through our committee on a bipartisan basis, I am hopeful that Chairman Issa will work on the same basis to address these outstanding issues. This, however, is a good bill, Mr. Speaker; and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the remarks of the chairman. I rise in support of this important legislation, with special appreciation to Majority Leader Eric Cantor and particularly to Chairman Issa and Ranking Member Cummings for quickly marking up this bill so that it could come to the floor expeditiously, as the District is in the throes of hiring a new CFO. I will have more to say on their indispensable support presently. The District of Columbia's independent chief financial officer is a unique office in the United States created by Congress. The city cannot obligate or expend funds without the CFO's approval, and the CFO can only be terminated for cause. Today's bill, which contains a formula developed by Chairman Issa, is an important example of the chairman's continuing commitment to assist the city in improving and safeguarding its vital operations. When the current CFO announced his retirement earlier this year, the Mayor formed a CFO search committee, led by Alice Rivlin, the former head of the D.C. Financial Control Board, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Budget Office, and former Mayor Anthony Williams. The search committee determined that the allowable compensation that is in the bill is necessary for the recruitment and retention of a CFO, but the District government does not have the authority under the Home Rule Act to alter the CFO's compensation. This bill would amend the Home Rule Act to permit the D.C. government to pay its CFO an amount that may not exceed the pay of members of the Senior Executive Service in agencies with an Office of Personnel Management-certified appraisal system. Currently, the Home Rule Act sets the CFO's pay at the basic pay for level I of the executive schedule. The bill's compensation standard, as with the term of an interim CFO under the D.C. Chief Financial Officer Vacancy Act, which we got enacted earlier this year, was established by Chairman Issa and is supported by the city. I am particularly grateful to the chairman and also to Majority Leader Cantor for their continued partnership on legislation to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the District of Columbia government. As with today's bill, their assistance was indispensable last month as the Congress, with bipartisan help from the Senate, agreed for the first time to remove the threat of a D.C. government shutdown by permitting the city to spend its local funds, its own locally raised taxpayer funds, for the entire fiscal year 2014. While Federal agencies' spending authority expires on January 15, the CR that Congress approved matches the city's responsibility to raise local funds with its right to, therefore, spend these funds, consistent with budget autonomy for the District, which Majority Leader Cantor, Chairman Issa, and Ranking Member Cummings have all supported. Again, I want to offer not only my own but also the gratitude of the city. The District has chosen a CFO; but, unfortunately, that matter is still pending because it has to lay over here in the Congress. The city is faced with the issue of two sovereigns that must approve a piece of legislation. Whenever I have had anything approaching that kind of emergency, the chairman has gone out of his way to see to it that we proceeded and that the city was not inconvenienced or, dare I say, embarrassed. I very much appreciate the way in which he expedited this bill and got it on a markup--and there have not been a lot of markups-- but he made sure this got on the most recent markup. I particularly appreciate his innovation in devising a formula that would, in fact, be approved as I believe and hope it will today by this House. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Capital Partners for Education (CPE) on 20 successful years of providing low-income youth in the national capital area with the necessary support to get to and through college. Founded in 1993, CPE is a dynamic college preparatory program that helps motivated, low-income youth to overcome the academic and social barriers that may otherwise prevent them from attending and succeeding in the college of their choice. Through its proven combination of one- on-one mentoring, partnerships with quality schools, academic financial assistance, and a customized array of academic, career, and life skills development, CPE works to break the cycle of poverty by leveling the educational playing field for low-income students. Since its inception, CPE has helped 99% of its graduates enroll in college and 70% to graduate on time. To meet the needs of the community and the 21st century workforce, CPE is expanding to reach more students. Currently, the organization serves 200 students and is on track to double its student body by 2016. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in thanking the staff, volunteers, donors, partner schools and organizations, students, parents, and alumni as they celebrate the 20th anniversary of CPE and its many accomplishments.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, when the time comes, Members and staff will get their insurance at dchealthlink.com. They will have a good chance to pay less because they will have 267 choices. In advance, one of my staff members, who has a name-brand policy from our Federal program, went on dchealthlink .com and found that she could get a comparable policy for at least $100 less with no deductible. If Republicans want to deal in anecdotes, hers is far more typical than those from the crowd who have gone from 41 repeals to their new strategy of actively sabotaging the Affordable Care Act.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Low-Wage Federal Contractor Back Pay Act of 2013, to grant back pay to federally contracted retail, food, custodial and security service workers who were furloughed during last month's federal government shutdown. The bill, which would amend the current continuing resolution, would apply to all three branches of the federal government. The idea for the bill was brought to my attention by these federally contracted service workers, some of whom work here on the Capitol grounds providing Members of Congress and congressional staff with daily services. Many federally contracted workers in federal agencies earn little more than the minimum wage with few, if any benefits, and while others are unionized with little better wages, all are the lowest paid workers in the federal government and should not be punished because Congress failed to do its job and keep the government functioning for 16 days. Congress did the right thing when it gave back pay to federal employees, who work in the same buildings as these low-wage service workers. However, both groups of workers were victims who deserve to be made whole. I recognize, of course, that contract workers are employees of contractors, but the distinction between federal workers and at least the lowest-paid service workers who serve the federal government and its employees and keep, for example, their premises clean, fails when it comes to a deliberate government shutdown. Unlike many other contractors, those who employ low-wage service workers have little latitude to help make up for lost wages. Low-wage federally contracted service workers could least afford the loss of pay during the shutdown, and should not now have to go to work every day with everyone else in their federal buildings having received back pay except for them. The nation's capital is the high-profile home of the federal government's collusion with those that pay low wages through leases and contracts with federal agencies. At least this legislation would provide some parity to these low-wage federal contractor workers. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, at a time when 900,000 veterans and 5,000 active duty service members face Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program cuts, I introduce a bill to allow the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide financial support to law school clinical programs that provide pro bono legal and support services to veterans, including, among other things, assistance with disability claims and appeals and foreclosures. The enormous backlog of disability claims at the VA and homelessness among veterans remain critical problems for our veterans. Approximately 107,000 veterans are homeless on any given night in this country and over 600,000 veterans are waiting for their disability claims to be processed by the VA. Providing clinical programs with the resources to assist veterans can result in faster processing of claims and quicker housing assistance to our veterans, who have repeatedly put their lives on the line for this country. This bill, introduced by my colleagues Senators Jeanne Shaheen, Amy Klobuchar and Chris Murphy in the Senate, would allow the VA to work with and support clinical programs for veterans. This bill merely builds on what some law schools have begun to do for the last several years while providing vital legal services to our veterans and reducing the backlog that has plagued the VA for many years. However, more needs to be done to sustain these programs and to recruit and retain qualified attorneys to supervise law students. Mr. Speaker, just as we honored our veterans on Veterans Day, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which would further honor and assist our veterans in their daily lives.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank my good friend from California, and I thank all of the bipartisan leaders of this bill, especially Mrs. Capps, who has made health care a signature issue for herself ever since coming to the Congress. Mr. Speaker, we haven't found our way out of one of the great disparities in medical science: the difference between the 100,000 patients seeking organ transplants and the mere 30,000 who get such transplants annually. The HOPE Act provides a possible breakthrough, one that I don't think we can refuse. It is a breakthrough for many whose condition would make them hopeless in waiting for an organ transplant. The regular reviews to evaluate medical research that are mandated by this bill could allow transplants from HIV-positive donors to HIV- positive recipients if the procedure--and this is important; the safeguards are tightly woven into this bill--if the procedure is shown to be both safe and effective. No wonder the Boxer-Coburn HOPE Act was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate. The wholesale ban in 1988 did not even allow research on HIV-infected organs. I am not sure I understand that since in this country we usually do not take research out of the picture. Today, medical science has come a long way, allowing many to live with HIV. We save many lives but then lose them to chronic conditions such as kidney and liver damage, often caused by the very HIV medications that have saved their lives. If they go on dialysis, there is virtually no hope for a transplant today. The way out of this conundrum is the way we have understood since the Enlightenment: ``Look for the evidence.'' Who can know where the science will take us or whether it will take us anywhere? With estimates of as many as another 600 organ donors who could be helpful annually, who would not want to try to find if this could be accomplished? Again, I thank the sponsors of this bill, which I think is rightfully named the HOPE Act.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Kojo Nnamdi for his outstanding contributions to journalism in the District of Columbia and the national capital region, and in congratulating him on the occasion of his 15th anniversary at WAMU 88.5, the leading public radio station serving D.C., Maryland and Virginia. For more than four decades, Kojo Nnamdi has been a source for issues of importance and of interest that has made him a fixture on the airwaves in the Washington region, on radio and television. Born in Guyana, South America, Kojo has been one of us in the District since 1969, when he came here to develop an independent Black curriculum for the Center for Black Education. Kojo soon began putting on radio plays, and then doing radio news at WHUR radio, where he was news editor, news reporter, and became news director. In 1985, Kojo moved to public television at Howard University Television, where he became a master of hosting a great variety of guests on many subjects on Evening Exchange for more than 20 years. In 1998, Kojo joined WAMU 88.5 as a host of a show called Public Interest. The show soon took on his distinctive name, along with his distinctive voice. Since joining WAMU 88.5, Kojo has brought the Kojo Nnamdi Show into communities across our region, documenting transformations and educating residents about the issues that span the interests and concerns of the region. His show casts a broad net, covering politics, culture, the arts, and education. His interviews and live debates among candidates, and always probing and informed questions, have helped hold elected leaders accountable. While covering national and international concerns alike, Kojo never forgets where he lives and the struggle of the residents of the District of Columbia for full voting rights, budget autonomy, and statehood. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Kojo Nnamdi and the entire team at the Kojo Nnamdi Show for their 15 years of outstanding service to the field of journalism and to the residents of the District of Columbia and the national capital region.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Maudine Cooper for a lifetime as a dedicated public servant both in government and on the outside, and particularly for 23 years of outstanding service as President and CEO of the Greater Washington Urban League. After earning her undergraduate and law degrees at Howard University, Ms. Cooper has spent most of her professional life as a consummate administrator and creator of social programs. Her work as Assistant Director for Federal Programs for the National Urban League soon led her to be named Vice President for Washington Operations and Legislative Affairs. Her sterling professional reputation led then-D.C. Mayor Marion Barry to tap Ms. Cooper to become the Director of the Office of Human Rights in the District of Columbia and ultimately the Mayor's chief of staff In 1990, Maudine Cooper became President and CEO of the Greater Washington Urban League and began to transform the organization. She leaves the Greater Washington Urban League having more than doubled its programs, including creating an organization for young professionals, the Thursday Network. She leaves the League here as a major provider of education, employment, job training, health, nutrition, and utility assistance services for more than 50,000 residents in the national capital region. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Maudine Cooper for a life of committed service to the residents of this region and in congratulating her on her retirement from the Greater Washington Urban League.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the historic Woodlawn Cemetery and in celebrating Clean-up our History Day at Woodlawn Cemetery in the District of Columbia on Saturday, October 19, 2013, at 10 a.m. Woodlawn Cemetery is the final resting place for many prominent African Americans, among them, Blanche K. Bruce, the first African American U.S. Senator; Mercer Langston, the first African American President of Virginia State University, the first dean of Howard University Law School and the first African American Member of Congress from the State of Virginia; and John Willis Menard, the first African American elected to Congress. There are 36,000 African Americans buried at Woodlawn, including ordinary citizens but also many of the most distinguished African Americans of the 19th and the early 20th centuries. Located in Southeast Washington, DC, Woodlawn Cemetery, for good reasons, has been on both the District of Columbia's Inventory of Historic Sites and the National Register of Historic Places since the early 1990s. The daily operations of the cemetery are entrusted to the Woodlawn Cemetery Perpetual Care Association, but most who work with the association as volunteers have loved ones buried there. The main focus of the association is to preserve the cemetery and to raise funds to renovate and restore prominence to this sacred site. This treasured site needs our help in the same way that a congressional resolution aided in getting assistance from citizens and from volunteers from the armed forces for the Congressional Cemetery two decades ago. The Woodlawn Cemetery Perpetual Care Association, along with DC National Guard volunteers, has developed a cleanup plan to restore this historic site. On Saturday, October 19, 2013, we will celebrate the first Clean-up our History Day at Woodlawn Cemetery, 3900 Benning Road, SE, at 10 a.m. Joining us for the clean-up will be Yvette Alexander, Ward 7 Councilmember; Major General Errol R. Schwartz, Commanding General of the District of Columbia National Guard; Lonnie Bunch, Founding Director of the National Museum of African American History and Culture; Dr. Vincent Hill, University of the District of Columbia Mortuary Science Program Director; and supporting organizations and residents from all over the city. I ask the House to join me as we recognize the volunteers from the District of Columbia National Guard, Woodlawn Cemetery Perpetual Care Association, and families of loved ones interred at Woodlawn for their participation in the kickoff of the cleanup of historic Woodlawn Cemetery as we begin an effort to restore the cemetery to its rightful place on the historical map for the benefit of families, historians, scholars and visitors, and cast light on one of the most important periods in African American history.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Maria Gomez, president and CEO of Mary's Center, for her outstanding contributions to health care, education and other social services in the District of Columbia and for being awarded the 2012 Presidential Citizens Medal. A nurse by training, Maria Gomez holds a nursing degree from Georgetown University and a Master of Public Health degree from the University California at Berkley. Mary's Center's services often are comprehensive, but Maria Gomez has never strayed far from health care. Maria Gomez founded Mary's Center in 1988, initially to provide bilingual prenatal and maternity care to vulnerable immigrant women in the District of Columbia. The small, basement- level facility, which served 200 women yearly in 1988, quickly expanded and today there are six locations in the District of Columbia and Maryland, and two mobile units, which serve over 50,000 men, women, and children of every background yearly. Maria Gomez molded the mission of Mary's Center into a model wraparound non-profit to improve the futures of our Hispanic residents through the delivery of health care, education and social services. Maria Gomez's has received numerous awards for work at Mary's Center. Among her awards are recognition in Washingtonian Magazine as one of the 45 individuals who shaped Washington, D.C. between 1965 and 2010, a Washington Post Award for Excellence in Nonprofit Management, and a Champions of Choice Award from Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington. She also has been singled out by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration for her excellent leadership in providing access to care for Latino women and children. Mr. Speaker, in this first month of the D.C. Health Benefit Exchange, it is appropriate to note that Mary's Center is a neighborhood Health Exchange Assister, a natural role for a leadership organization and for a leader whose career exemplifies offering health care to D.C. residents. I ask my colleagues to join me honoring Maria Gomez for her work in health care and her excellence in providing other services to the people of the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, as hundreds of thousands of our federal workers face furloughs and a third year of pay freezes, I introduce a bill to clarify certain due process rights of federal employees serving in sensitive positions. The bill would overturn a recent, unprecedented federal court decision, Kaplan v. Conyers and MSPB, that strips many federal employees of the right to independent review of an agency decision removing them from a job on grounds of ineligibility. The case was brought by two Department of Defense (DOD) employees, Rhonda Conyers, an accounting technician, and Devon Northover, commissary management specialist, who were permanently demoted and suspended from their jobs after they were found to no longer be eligible to serve in noncritical sensitive positions. Specifically, the decision prevents federal workers who are designated as ``noncritical sensitive'' from appealing to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) if they are removed from their jobs. Noncritical sensitive jobs include those that do not have access to classified information. The decision would affect at least 200,000 DOD employees who are designated as noncritical sensitive. Even more seriously, most federal employees could potentially lose the same right to an independent review of an agency's decision because of a pending rule by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) that would permit agency heads to designate most jobs in the federal government as noncritical sensitive. The Kaplan decision undercuts Title 5, section 7701 of the Civil Service Act, which ensures due process rights for federal workers required by the United States Constitution. Stripping employees whose work does not involve classified matters of the right of review of an agency decision that removes them from their jobs opens entirely new avenues for unreviewable, arbitrary action or retaliation by an agency head and, in addition, makes a mockery of whistleblower protections enacted in the 112th Congress. My bill would stop the use of ``national security'' to repeal a vital component of civil service protection and of due process. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a slightly amended version of the District of Columbia Incentives for Business and Individual Investment Act (H.R. 2890), which I introduced on July 31, 2013. The prior version of the bill had a couple of drafting errors. This version of the bill corrects those errors by extending all of the D.C. tax incentives through 2015.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues in the House to join me in recognizing retired United States Navy Commander Kerwin E. Miller on the occasion of his 60th birthday and in honoring him for his service to his country in multiple ways throughout his adult life. Cdr. Miller has made public service a lifelong pursuit. Since his induction to the U.S. Naval Academy in 1971, Kerwin has served under seven presidents, two Members of Congress, Walter Fauntroy and myself, and two mayors of the District of Columbia, Anthony Williams and Adrian Fenty, and has had a special commitment to the 40,000 veterans and the more than 600,000 residents in the District of Columbia. Kerwin graduated from the Naval Academy in 1975, and his heart has never left The Yard, where he continues to serve his alma mater as a member of the Admissions Committee. In 1986, Kerwin joined Congressman Fauntroy's Service Academy Selection Board, and since 1991, he has served the people of the Nation's capital as first Vice-Chairman and now as Chairman of the Board. He indefatigably guides students through their applications and promotes the benefits of a Service Academy education in general and of the Naval Academy in particular. Kerwin always has a plan, a program, or an athletic event (usually all three at once), sometimes with musical accompaniment by the U.S. Naval Academy Gospel Choir, to encourage DC students to investigate their possibilities at the Academies. Along with his outstanding service to the Academies, Kerwin played a strong role in saving the District of Columbia's War Memorial, was an attorney in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and served as director of the Mayor's Office of Veterans Affairs. He has always been a staunch advocate for the District's right to govern itself, and, above all, a devoted, thoughtful, and a fearsome friend of the city and a friend who has my personal respect and admiration. I particularly remember Kerwin's attention to his mentor, the late Lt. Cdr. Wesley Brown, USNA 1949, the first African American graduate of the Naval Academy. Kerwin helped plan the dedication of the field house that bears Lt. Cdr. Brown's name, organized Wesley's affairs, his care, and his memorial service. Kerwin continues to serve as his executor. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me recognizing Cdr. Miller not only with a ``Happy Birthday'' on his 60th birthday, but particularly for his service to the country and city, and always as with ``Go Navy! Beat Army!''

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his support during his service in Congress for the District of Columbia. Notwithstanding the way the D.C. budget is coming to the floor this year, I come to the floor to ask my colleagues for help. And I think each and every last one of you would be saying exactly what I'm saying if your own district was on the line. I'm speaking for 618,000 innocent bystanders to this Federal food fight. They have raised $8 billion--more than four States--but they are not able to spend a dime of it as I speak because this Congress hasn't done its work, and they have no authority to spend their own local funds. They are living off of contingency funds that are fast running out. You are holding their local funds as if it were your money. It's our money. The strategy of each side seems to deepen the city's crisis. The Republicans cherry-pick, but the health care bill is still on the table. The Democrats see that the public is on its side, so they don't have any incentive to move. The goals of each side are known, but neither has an exit strategy, and it is the District of Columbia that is hurting. If the game plan is to keep this going until the debt ceiling in the middle of the month, please don't. Each day without an agreement is punishing millions of Americans and every single D.C. resident. Freeing D.C. leaves every bit of the strategy of each side in place because all the Federal funds are there. The sin was requiring the local budget to come here in the first place. Don't compound that sin by simply throwing D.C. into the pile with Federal appropriations and pretending as if they were the same. You have no right to pull a defenseless city into this Federal boxing match. You have no right to use the good name of the people of the District of Columbia alongside appropriations--no matter how wonderful they are. Those appropriations depend upon your funding. The $8 billion is our funding. You have no right to leave our local budget sticking up like a sore thumb among the Federal appropriations. It's our money, not yours. Do not drive the Nation's Capital into crisis. Pass this bill. Free D.C. Please free the people of the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from New York. This debate is already heartbreaking to me. Every time I hear the District of Columbia mentioned in the same breath with other appropriations on either my side of the aisle, you are casting this city precisely where it cannot be cast--as just another Federal appropriation. This is a living, breathing city, and the notion of holding up our budget under any circumstances or not distinguishing between the District of Columbia appropriations--a local budget and not one of your 12 appropriations; a local budget--and the other budgets is breaking my heart. It puts me in an impossible position. I have a greater number of Federal employees than any part of this region. And of course, because I must support this piecemeal approach, when it comes to this D.C. continuing resolution, I'm leaving them behind. Well, what am I to do? What would you do if your local budget were here? Would you mention it in the same breath as the HHS budget, or the Labor Department budget, or the VA budget? I was here when there was a piecemeal approach, and it was painful. After the District was shut down for 1 week, I went to Speaker Newt Gingrich and I said, please don't do that again for the District. There were CRs and there were bills, but each and every time Newt kept the District open after that. So I'm asking, keep the District open. Don't dare compare us to your appropriations. I understand the resentment on my side about what is being done here, but carry out your resentment without putting us in the position of a thing, nothing but another piece of federal appropriation that you have something to do with. It's $8 billion in local money, not one dime of Federal money. It shouldn't be here. If it's here, everybody in this Chamber ought to be doing everything that you can to get it out of here. One hundred twenty Democrats signed my letter--and I thank each and every one of you--to the leadership to say: Free the District budget; don't close the city down. What the mayor is doing now is cobbling things together, a piecemeal approach of his own. With contingency funds, he's keeping the District of Columbia government running. But that's going to run out in a few days. When it does, my friends, guess what happens? We can't appropriate a dollar, even if he declares that D.C. employees are all essential, without running into the Antideficiency Act. So we face default on our contracts because apparently neither side can tell the difference between a city and an appropriation of a Federal Government. I ask you, please, do not leave us in that position. This resolution only keeps us open until December 15. How pitiful. So we'll be back again begging and pleading? It's on the floor now only because I have begged and pleaded the majority--and yes, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, the chairman of our committee. Yes, that's what I've done, to say please bring it any way you can, bring it to the floor. I lived through a shutdown of the District of Columbia once. What makes this most frustrating to me today is that we have worked hard, and now have bicameral, bipartisan support for shutdown-avoidance legislation for the District of Columbia. The President put it in his budget. The chairman of the full committee, Mr. Issa, has a bill that would keep the District from shutting down and go even further. The Appropriations Committee deferred to the authorizers, but said it believed that shutdowns hurt the District of Columbia. And the Senate appropriation bill has shutdown-avoidance language in it for the District of Columbia. No Member has come to the floor to justify closing down the District, and I do not believe there is a Republican or a Democrat that wants to shut down the District of Columbia. So yes, when the time comes to vote, there are going to be three bills. I am asking you to distinguish between the other appropriations and ours so that you know the difference between a city with its own money and a Federal appropriation. Please vote to keep the District of Columbia running until December 15.