Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Ms. NORTON. I'm pleased to yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 3174. This legislation would lift the cap on the Federal Highway Administration emergency relief program funds that occur in 2013. Earlier this month, Colorado experienced historic storms that resulted in severe flooding, landslides, and mudslides. As a result of these severe storms, more than 50 bridges have been damaged or destroyed and over 200 miles of roads in Colorado have been affected by the flooding. Initial estimates by the Colorado Department of Transportation are that damage to roads and bridges as a result of the storm could cost between $430 million and $475 million. To assist States in dealing with unexpected destruction of surface transportation infrastructure because of natural disasters or catastrophic failure caused by an external event, Congress created FHWA's emergency relief program. This program provides funding to States to make emergency repairs and restore Federal-aid highway facilities to pre-disaster conditions. While the ER program receives $100 million annually from the highway trust fund, demand for funding from this program usually exceeds this amount and requires supplemental appropriations from general revenues to address the backlog of funding requests from States. Earlier this year, Congress appropriated $2 billion for the ER program in the Hurricane Sandy relief legislation. This $2 billion appropriation was intended to address rebuilding highways in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, as well as other natural disasters across the Nation. Mr. Speaker, I would note that the House had a vigorous debate about Hurricane Sandy during that relief bill's consideration, with many of my friends on the other side of the aisle actually opposing the bill, including the sponsor of the legislation we are debating today. Thankfully, a majority of the House stood with our colleagues from States that suffered the incredible destruction as a result of Hurricane Sandy. I would urge that we stand with our colleagues from Colorado today with the hope that prior opponents of such relief will see how important it is when it affects their own home State to understand that we are all in this together in this country when it comes to natural and catastrophic disasters. Of the $2 billion provided by that legislation for highway ER projects as a result of Hurricane Sandy and other disasters, approximately $550 million remains available. In addition to providing additional funding for the ER program, the legislation also restricted the amount that a State could receive of these funds to no more than $100 million per incident, with a separate cap provided for highway repair funds for States affected by Hurricane Sandy. To address the concern that Colorado could not be fully reimbursed for the cost of restoring its infrastructure, which could cost more than $400 million, in a timely manner, H.R. 3174 eliminates the $100 million cap on ER funds made available in the Hurricane Sandy Relief Act for all disasters that occur in 2013. This bill is consistent with changes to the ER program made in the most recent Surface Transportation Authorization Act, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, or MAP-21, which also eliminated the historical $100 million cap. Mr. Speaker, no State can plan for the type of destruction Colorado is dealing with as a result of the severe storms and flooding. That is why the ER program was created. That is why this House passed the Hurricane Sandy Relief Act and made additional highway repair funds available to all States that have suffered such natural disasters. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3174. Let us ensure that Colorado has the support and resources that it needs to rebuild its surface transportation infrastructure. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Ms. NORTON. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, this House should be proud to stand with Colorado. Anyone who saw the State seeming to be washed away and floods the likes of which I've never seen in my life would have her heart go out to the residents of the State. Mr. Speaker, also I know that last week there was a United Nations report that found that, when they surveyed scientists from throughout the world, there was a 95 percent agreement, a 95 percent certainty that climate change is having its effects right now. That is a very high percentage for scientists to give to any issue. We know that a combination of factors produced these thousand-year floods, whatever you want to attach to them, in Colorado. But they certainly were aided and abetted by climate changes. This House needs to take climate change seriously. As difficult as it is, we're going to see more and more catastrophes like this and, as usual, they will be in places we never expected them. In places where there are not tornados, we will see tornados. In places where there have not been floods, that is what we have seen in just the last few years. So I certainly am pleased, and I'm sure every Member of this House will be pleased, to stand with the residents of Colorado as they try to recover from this flood which has devastated so many of their citizens. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. After 41 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the Republicans want the administration to believe that they now want only a delay. Why don't they state that forthrightly? Why don't they say they are now for the Affordable Care Act, but they want to delay it because of certain issues and bring them forward? Instead, their call for delay is still about their opposition altogether to the Affordable Care Act. One hundred thousand Americans are already receiving benefits under the Affordable Care Act. Do you really want us to yank them back from benefits that they have never received before? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues in the House to join me in recognizing Washington, DC physician assistant Jennifer Vaupel, who practices at Bread for the City. We commend Mrs. Vaupel for the valuable health care services she provides to medically underserved populations in DC. She should be honored for her compassion and the quality medical services she provides to these vulnerable patients. Mrs. Vaupel has served as a physician assistant for almost six years at Bread for the City, which is a premier safety-net service organization in DC Bread for the City has been providing comprehensive support services--food, clothing, medical care, and legal and social services--to the city's low-income population for nearly 40 years. As the sole full-time physician assistant working at this nonprofit, Mrs. Vaupel ensures patients receive the health care and other services they need. Throughout her career in health care, Mrs. Vaupel has gone above and beyond what is required of her. She seeks to understand the socioeconomic challenges her patients endure, and, as a result, she is able to ensure better health care outcomes for her patients. Because of Mrs. Vaupel's courageous work, Bread for the City was awarded the prestigious Caring for Communities Grant from the Physician Assistant Foundation. This $5,000 annual award was presented to Bread for the City in May 2013, in recognition of the manner in which the nonprofit has used physician assistants in providing care to people with disabilities or for those without the ability to pay for medical services. The award also recognizes the numerous educational experiences Bread for the City has given physician assistants and students in physician assistant programs. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the successful and compassionate work of Mrs. Vaupel. Mrs. Vaupel improves the quality of life for many residents of Washington, DC, as exemplified by the awarding of the Physician Assistant Foundation grant to Bread for the City. Her work not only directly helps her patients, but it also sets a wonderful humanitarian example for us all.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last week, the Nation's Capital--the District of Columbia--was in great grief and pain as we lost 12 employees at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday. I want to thank Members who have expressed their condolences when they've seen me here. Tuesday, I was on this floor for a moment of silence with four Members of Congress who had served in the Navy even though this is actually a naval installation which houses, largely, Federal civilian employees of the Naval Sea Systems Command. Sunday, I was at a memorial service for the 12 with the President and other Members of Congress and a large group of friends and families of the 12. Yesterday, I attended the funeral of Arthur Lee Daniels, a most sobering and sad funeral of a man who supported his wife and children and who was much beloved by them. He was the breadwinner, and now he is gone. All during that week, however Mr. Speaker, there was another cloud hanging over this city that I could not forget, that, strange as it may seem, the shutdown threat facing the Federal Government was also facing the District of Columbia. We are talking about a local budget and a budget that, by rights, should not be in the Congress at all. September 30 is the end of the fiscal year. That is Monday--4 days away. The prospect of a government shutdown increases as each day passes. All that we hear here are permutations on the conditions that have now been put on the congressional resolution for keeping the government open, so I cannot assume that there will not be a shutdown, at least, for a short period of time. Considering the shutdown of 1995, anyone who reads history or who was here then, I think, would not want that to happen again. The cost of a shutdown to the Nation's Capital according to the figures from 2011--the cost of a shutdown threat, because the government has not shut down in recent years, but there were three possible shutdowns in 2011. The cost of a shutdown was $131,000 to the District of Columbia and 3,000 staff hours. That's money and time that should be spent on running a big city. I am sure Members must be saying, Well, what is it that the District of Columbia did to make the Congress want its budget to come to the Congress? Because that's anathema to most Members of Congress. I think most Members of Congress would almost rather repeat the Revolution of our forefathers rather than see one's local budget here before Members who know nothing of it and have nothing to do with it and don't have a dime in it. This is a matter of history and anachronism that nobody should be proud of. We are talking about a local budget of $8 billion in local money, and there is not anything about the D.C. budget that has summoned it to the Congress. It comes because it has always come. It's on automatic pilot, despite a budget autonomy referendum that has been overwhelmingly passed in the city, despite my budget autonomy bill, despite my statehood bill; but we are only talking about the local budget now, about local budget autonomy. So, my friends, I can say there is nothing about the D.C. budget that causes it to be here. On the contrary, the District of Columbia has a $1.5 billion reserve. It puts money in its reserves every year--in good times and bad times. That is one of the largest reserves in the United States today. Most jurisdictions would be proud to have any reserve at all these days. So far from there being something about the D.C. budget, there ought to be a resolution on this floor that commends the District of Columbia for how it has handled its local budget. Its budget was submitted here, on time. The budget was in such good shape that it was easily approved by both appropriations committees. There it sits in the House and Senate, along with Federal appropriations-- although the District budget alone among them is not a Federal appropriation. It is a local budget. So in this matter that ties the city up in the Congress, there is no budget issue. Indeed, the appropriators have never interfered or tried to change the local budget. There is no way they could do so. A local budget is put together with great delicacy after local subcommittee hearings and other hearings and negotiations between the council and the Mayor, with trimmings here and additions there. No one would dare touch it. In my more than 20 years in Congress--and most of my time has been spent in the minority--no one on either side of the aisle has attempted to get into the innards of the District budget. I have every confidence in the District budget because the District of Columbia has something that no other jurisdiction in the United States has. It has an independent chief financial officer who serves on a 5-year term and who cannot be fired by the Mayor or city council except for cause, and you know what ``cause'' means. He is independent. You can't spend money unless he passes off on it. The money isn't available unless he says so. Of course, there is the same kind of discretion that your own local jurisdictions have to spend money, but it's not nearly the kind of discretion you're used to. Indeed, no political figure--no other mayor or council or local legislature--has a chief financial officer who gets the final say on budgetary matters. You see, there is nothing that any Member could raise about the budget. If anything, the District budget is subject to a kind of scrutiny that no Member's local budget is. There are Members in this body whose local or state budgets are balanced only by straws and fluff. Ours is a balanced budget that has had the sanction not only of a Mayor and a city council, but of a chief financial officer. So, you say, there must be some good motive here. After all, who would want to bring a big, complicated city to its knees for nothing. The answer, my friends, is: no one. There is no one in this body or in the other body who has called for or made a statement that would lead you to believe that she is for the present predicament of the District of Columbia's, allowing the city to close down if the Federal Government shuts down. Nor is this one of the usual ideological or philosophical differences between the two sides where Democrats and Republicans have deep differences on matters like their budgets or health care or the rest-- not this one. No one complains about the budget and how it is put together. No ideological or philosophical differences have been raised; and if there were some, I think there would have been no hesitation in raising them. So there is nothing in D.C.'s local budget for any Member of this House. There is nothing in a threat of a shutdown for any Member of the House. There is nothing in a shutdown, itself, and here I am referring to a local government shutdown. Part of the reason it goes on is that most Members don't pay attention to any local jurisdiction, even one right in their faces--the Nation's Capital's budget. That's not what they've been sent here to do. Most don't even know about it. I'm sure they don't care about it. So this historic anomaly, doing great damage to the city, continues. Worse, this matter with our local budget here now, facing the great Nation's Capital with a shutdown, violates every principle of federalism. My colleagues on the other side stand on federalism, it would appear, above all other matters; and I should think they would be the first to want the local budget out of the hands of the ``big foot'' Federal Government. On my side of the aisle, there are deep feelings about local control as well. Put yourself in my position. How would any Member of this House feel or react if its local money had to pass any eyes in this Chamber who had nothing to do with raising that local money? I don't have the words to say what you would say in that circumstance. If this government were founded on any principle, it was founded on the principle of federalism, and if there is any meaning to federalism, it begins with money: no taxation without representation. You, Members of the House and Senate, elected by your constituents, don't get to say what my constituents do with their own money. That's a basic principle of American federalism. The gentlelady from Texas.

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentlelady from Texas, who, in her generosity, has come down to speak from the point of view of another Member who isn't facing this in her own jurisdiction but understands what we are facing from the Federal Government and how it must indeed be. I thank you very much for your generosity and for those very insightful statements about our predicament. Indeed, before I recognized the gentlelady, I was speaking about federalism. Essentially, our forefathers and foremothers distrusted Federal power. Nothing is more alien to Federal power than a local budget. I can't imagine that they would have abided that under any circumstances for the District of Columbia or any other city. This country is, in many ways, State and local-oriented, not Federal oriented. We need the Federal Government, we can't do without it; but as to our principles, we set up a Republic that separated local and State matters from Federal matters, and of those matters none is more salient than matters affecting the purse. The District does not regard itself as a hostage. We are not a hostage to this fight. If that were the case, we would try to negotiate our way out of it or give up. But we're not a part of this fight. When you're a hostage, somebody would say something about you or they would want something and they're using you to get it, but they're not. No one has claimed the District of Columbia as some link to the disputes that are going on here between the administration and Congress. We face a no-exit, no-way-out proposition because there's nothing we could, ourselves, do. There's nothing for us to give. There's no concession for us to make that would free us. We've got to depend upon the goodwill of the Speaker of the House of the majority, leader of the House of the majority, majority leader of the Senate and the minority leader of the Senate, their leadership, this leadership, and, of course, of our own minority leadership and the Members of the House and the Senate. I cannot believe they do not identify with me as I stand here trying to get recognition for my city to spend its own money. I believe if they put themselves in my place, there would be enough generosity in this body to agree that wherever we stand on the dispute before us, the District of Columbia is not a part of it and should not be dragged into it. This is a big, complicated city. It's run well. Its budget and reserves show that. The Federal Government, unlike the Nation's Capital, does not deliver direct services. That's what big cities and small towns do. A Federal shutdown will have its effects throughout the country because we've got almost 3 million Federal workers, and they will feel it first and foremost; and some of the services that the American people regard as essential, but which are not considered essential by the Office of Personnel Management, some of those services will not be available. But those are not like the services that many of you who live in the District of Columbia, Members of Congress, depend upon from the District of Columbia, like picking up your trash and garbage, for example. Even that would be stopped. Who would be affected, therefore? Well, clearly the 600,000 plus-- actually, it's close to 625,000 residents now because the District has been gaining population at a rate of about 1,000 a month. That speaks to how well the city is doing. That's how attractive the city is to people moving to this area. It clearly serves, first and foremost, its own citizens; but the District of Columbia is the Nation's Capital and serves private businesses. It serves Federal officials, visitors, Federal buildings, and foreign embassies. The circle is very broad of those who will feel any shutdown of the District of Columbia. Moreover, our finances, which have been doing so well, could be very negatively affected. The city has financing agreements of various kinds, such as a master equipment lease, for example. Like every city, it leases a wide variety of equipment, like some traffic lights and automobiles and public safety vehicles, and it has certificates of participation on some of its buildings, like its command center for public safety. All of those could face a default if a payment is due while a shutdown occurs. Of course, if that occurs, if they miss a payment, then, of course, under the terms of these agreements, the bondholders must be notified, and that would drive up the city's costs. Is there a Member that even knows this? Surely there are Members who would care that this unintended effect would lead to such serious results. Wall Street already penalizes the District because its budget has to come here at all. When your budget is not final when it is passed by your local officials, it has to come to a body like the Congress of the United States, even at its most stable, the fact of dual sanctions to approve a budget costs the city on Wall Street, not withstanding its handsome reserves. I'm not asking the Congress to do the unprecedented. Eighteen years ago when the government shut down--and it was shut down for a week--I went to Speaker Gingrich and asked him not to allow the District to shut down again. There were partial shutdowns, but each time a CR came. He included the District in the CR, and I'm asking for that relief, as well, from the House. It was a House and Senate in Republican hands and an administration in Democratic hands--it was also a polarized time-- yet the District of Columbia was kept open. There are remedies. We are included in the pending congressional resolution because, thanks to the appropriators for the last 10 years, if there is a congressional resolution or, for that matter, a bill, the District of Columbia can spend its local funds at next year's levels. That's not a big favor to the District of Columbia because, remember, we are not a Federal agency, which can only spend at the present year levels. But it was an important thing to do because it had calamitous effects, when the District could not move ahead with its own appropriations as planned and with contracts and with schools and with the many different operations that were affected, when you couldn't spend at the next year's level which you had approved and had been approved by your chief financial officer. So I've had three bills. One was to amend the CR so that if it turns out to last until December 15 or if it turns out to be a week from now, whatever it is, the District would not have to lurch from CR to CR in short-term CRs. We've asked that the District be permitted to spend its funds for the 2014 fiscal year. Then I also have an independent bill that would allow the same remedy--not part of the CR--that the leadership could bring to the floor simply to allow the District to spend for the 2014 fiscal year, same terms, nothing changed, exactly what is now in the appropriation that is pending, except that it could now go forward for the next fiscal year. Then I have a permanent no-shutdown bill. What makes all of this so ironic is that pending, as I speak, is bicameral, bipartisan support for preventing government shutdowns. This summer, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee approved larger bills that contained provisions that would permanently authorize the District government to remain open and spend its local funds. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget contains the same authorization, and the appropriators in the House have acknowledged the harm done to the District by these shutdowns and asked the authorizers to proceed. As we move closer to the government shutdown, the need to free the District's budget from the grasp of a dispute that shows no sign of ending has become more clear. These continuing resolutions, and the preparations for shutdown are having a punitive effect on the Nation's Capital. The Nation's Capital is an innocent party to this Federal dispute. Only legislation like the three bills I have just named or my budget or autonomy legislation would keep the Nation's Capital from being embroiled in Federal fights. I ask Members to consider what I have said here this evening and to free the city from disputes I don't think you mean us to be a part of. I thank the Speaker and yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank my good friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, for his work on this very important bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3095. This legislation ensures that changes planned by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to better diagnose and treat sleep apnea among commercial truck and bus drivers will be done with a formal rulemaking. I believe the FMCSA's initiative to address sleep apnea is important, and I fully support the Agency's efforts to improve safety. There is little question that obstructive sleep apnea, if left untreated, can significantly affect a truck or bus driver and his or her on-the-job performance. When we scheduled markup of this bill in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Agency was considering making significant changes to the medical screening of drivers for sleep apnea through guidance. The rulemaking process, however, will afford FMCSA the opportunity to get input from the public, including drivers and companies who will be directly affected by the changes. FMCSA has since committed to making changes through a rulemaking. Therefore, this legislation has been overtaken by events and seems to have already had the desired effect. While I am not sure this bill is necessary, I have no objection whatsoever to its content, and I support its adoption. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I can only hope that the agency--which has a long docket--in fact gets to this rulemaking. It is always, in the best of all possible worlds, best to have rulemaking input from the public, of course the formal effect of rules in the courts of the United States. And I'm not sure why the agency was going to do guidance instead. But this is a very important issue. There have been accidents that have been attributed to sleep apnea. But again, without any guidance, without any rulemaking, without any understanding of how to go about even detecting it and what you're supposed to do to prevent it, we are delayed in preventing these accidents. So I very much appreciate the work of both sides, and certainly of my good friend, the chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, all of us are trying to keep the government open, yet the Federal Government at the moment is engaged in contingency plans in case of a shutdown, and so is the District of Columbia. Because its budget is here, this local budget, this balanced $8 billion in local funds is right here because the Congress requires it to come and hasn't freed the D.C. budget. It cost us 3,000 hours and $131,000 in 2011 to prepare for a shutdown. When speaker Newt Gingrich was the Speaker of the House, he worked with me to keep the District of Columbia open even as the Federal Government closed down, because one thing is clear: the only thing worse than closing down the United States Government is closing down an innocent bystander with not a dime in this fight, the capital city of the United States. Free the budget of the District of Columbia. Don't close down the Nation's Capital.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank four former officers of the United States Navy--Representatives Murphy, Broun, Bridenstine, and DeSantis-- for joining me as I rise in tribute to 12 Americans, almost all Federal employees, who lost their lives in the service of the United States yesterday in a mass shooting at the Navy Yard. They were civilian employees doing work for the Naval Sea Systems Command. Unlike the blue collar workers of the old Navy Yard, Naval Sea Systems Command employees are skilled white collar workers, highly trained to offer technical support for building, buying, and manufacturing the Navy's ships and combat systems. The Navy Yard was renovated with historic deference to the old manufacturing workplace, and the Naval Sea Systems Command jump-started the development of the neighborhood that received them. The Naval Sea Systems Command became a good neighbor, though we knew little of the work done in that secure facility. We did know this: these Federal employees deserved our respect and our admiration because they and their work were vital to our Nation. We ask the House to join us for a moment of silence for these 12 who gave all they had for their country: Michael Arnold, Martin Bodrog, Arthur Daniels, Sylvia Frasier, Kathleen Gaarde, John Roger Johnson, Mary Francis Knight, Frank Kohler, Vishnu Pandit, Kenneth Bernard Proctor, Gerald L. Read, and Richard Michael Ridgell.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Ben's Chili Bowl on its 55th anniversary of service to the residents of the District of Columbia and its thousands of visitors, who have carried its reputation far and wide. Ben's was founded in 1958 by newlyweds Ben and Virginia Ali, who converted an old pool hall on U Street into today's Ben's Chili Bowl, a virtual DC institution. The Ali's made Ben's into a prominent family business that their sons Kamal and Nizam later joined. Ben's has expanded from its signature U Street location to Ben's Next Door, Nationals Park, and FedEx Field, and will soon open locations on H Street NE and in Arlington, Virginia. From the beginning, Ben's Chili Bowl was frequented by the neighborhood, then the city, and soon celebrities, entertainers, actors, and political figures as they visited DC's historic U Street, also known as ``Black Broadway.'' After the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the riots that soon followed, Ben's Chili Bowl was given special police permission to remain open to provide food and shelter for all who were trying to restore peace in the city. The popular restaurant saw a surge in customers during the 1970s but also big-city problems. In 1987, the expansion of DC's Metro rail to the U Street corridor made U Street a construction site, drastically reducing customer traffic and threatening Ben's survival. But Ben's survived while many U Street businesses died. Five years later, when the Green Line was completed, Ben's Chili Bowl returned to full business. Its core strength, which ensured the loyalty of its customers, had taken Ben's through civil disturbances that destroyed the old U Street and construction that took much of what was left. Today, Ben's Chili Bowl flourishes as a DC destination that tourists visit the way they tour the official historic sites. Its regulars include celebrities like Bill Cosby and Dick Gregory, politicians like President Obama, and visitors from throughout the world. Ben's famous half-smokes continue to tantalize the tastes of regulars and newcomers alike. Ben's Chili Bowl has given the District of Columbia its own fun cuisine beginning with its half-smokes. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the 55th anniversary of Ben's Chili Bowl and in wishing the Ali family continued success.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer the District of Columbia Government Shutdown Avoidance Act of 2013 to eliminate the prospect of a District of Columbia government shutdown on September 30, 2013, or ever again. This bill is essential because a new fiscal year is upon us and D.C.'s local, balanced budget, which has been approved by the House and Senate Appropriations committees, has not reached the floor in either house. Frequent shutdown threats to the local D.C. government have been costly and disruptive to the city government, its employees and its residents, including many federal officials and employees who reside in the District. This bill would add to existing authorities the city has long had to spend its local funds by permanently authorizing the District government to spend its local funds in the event of a Federal Government shutdown and therefore remain open. Because of the uncertainty and adverse effects on the city caused by increasingly frequent shutdown threats, I am taking several actions to try to prevent a D.C. government shutdown at the end of the month. I begin by introducing this bill. I must take action now because some Republicans are threatening to block a new spending bill when the current bill expires on September 30 unless the new bill defunds the Affordable Care Act, which could lead to a shutdown of both the Federal and District governments, and because the House is scheduled to be in session for only five days before September 30. In case my bill is not enacted in time, I will also offer an amendment to the fiscal year 2014 short-term continuing resolution (CR) (H.J. Res. 59) to authorize the District government to spend its local funds for all of fiscal year 2014, and not only until the expiration of the CR on December 15, 2013, so that the city does not face a shutdown threat again when the CR expires in December. The D.C. government should never have to wonder whether it will be shut down. I do not believe any Member wants to shut down the D.C. government and bring a large, complicated city to its knees because of a purely federal matter. Indeed, there is bicameral, bipartisan support for preventing D.C. government shutdowns. In July, both the Republican- led Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Democratic-led Senate Appropriations Committee approved larger bills that contained the provision in this bill that would permanently authorize the D.C. government to spend its local funds during a Federal Government shutdown. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget also contained the shutdown-avoidance provision. The report accompanying the Republican- led House Appropriations Committee-passed fiscal year 2013 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill also acknowledged the harm of District government shutdowns. The bill would permanently protect the more than 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia and the Federal Government from an unintended catastrophe in any future Federal Government shutdown. The District of Columbia raises and manages an $8 billion local budget, but Congress technically appropriates these funds back to the District, an anachronistic holdover and throwback from the pre-home-rule era. Several years ago, Republican appropriators and I reached a bipartisan agreement to approve the District government's local budget in CRs, until the expiration of those CRs, allowing the District government to spend at next year's level, if the District government's regular appropriations bill has not been signed into law by the start of a fiscal year. We are grateful that this agreement has been honored through Democratic and Republican Congresses and administrations. This agreement has enabled District officials to operate complex, big-city functions more effectively than during the many years when the city's local budget was approved by Congress months after the start of a fiscal year. However, last Congress, we saw the limits of even this helpful agreement when the Federal Government almost shut down on multiple occasions, and we are facing a shutdown again this year. If the District government shuts down, in addition to the vital municipal services that would cease, the District could default under certain financing agreements and leases. Tourists to this city, your constituents, not to mention federal officials, federal buildings, foreign embassies and dignitaries and businesses, rely daily on the city's services. Furthermore, forcing D.C. to operate under successive CRs greatly hinders the operations of the District government. Not only do successive CRs make it difficult for the city to plan its activities for the year, successive CRs greatly increase the city's costs of doing business. The city's partners, from Wall Street to small vendors, may charge it a risk premium due to the uncertainty created by successive CRs. These are not results the Congress envisions or desires as we approach the end of the fiscal year. Our bill would once and for all remove the Nation's Capital from the entanglement in federal matters and disputes for which the city has no blame or involvement. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, as the House adjourns, I want to note that when we come back the House will be in session for 5 days before the end of the fiscal year. That could bring a shutdown of the Federal Government. What most Americans don't know is that that could bring a shutdown also of the government of the Nation's Capital, the District of Columbia. I want to make clear that there is not a single Member of this House or the Senate who desires that outcome. There is nothing in that for anybody. Many Members of Congress and their staff actually live in the District of Columbia, so to have the Nation's Capital shut down is not anything that would be even in their interest. Beyond their own interest, most Members of Congress believe in local control and are mystified when they come here, whatever their party, to find that the Congress has anything to do with the local budget of the District of Columbia--$8 billion raised by the city--which has to come here before the city can spend a dime of its own money. The city has before the Congress, as I speak, a balanced budget. In fact, a budget that has won plaudits all around the country, and even in this Congress, because of the fund balance that the city has managed to build--over $1 billion--over time. D.C.'s very middle name should be ``prudence.'' If anything, the District of Columbia has been an example of what we are trying to get cities and States all across the country to do. I understand why the leadership decided not to move forward with a continuing resolution, which would have guaranteed that the government would remain open until December 15. They need the time to get the votes and to satisfy their Members. That's perfectly understandable. What would not be understandable is if we went through another shutdown crisis. The government actually did shut down about 18 years ago. I do want to say here on the floor how grateful I am to the Speaker of the House at the time, Newt Gingrich, who indeed kept the District of Columbia, the Nation's Capital, open during multiple shutdowns of the Federal Government. He did so simply because it makes no sense to shut down the government of the Nation's Capital, which has not one ounce of interest in or blame for the disputes that have increasingly grown and have caused us to go on continuing resolutions because we do not get our bills done in time. There needs to be time to reconcile those matters. It is important to note that the District of Columbia budget, which was submitted here on time, is in such good shape that it did, in fact, pass both of the appropriation committees that receive it. So there's no issue here involving the District of Columbia, no reason why anybody would want it entangled in a Federal dispute. In fact, I thought that my good friends in the majority, above all, stood for disentanglement of the Federal Government from what should rightly be the work of the localities. I hasten to say this is an unintended consequence that comes from the fact that most Members don't even know it. Members come here to do the business of their district and the Federal Government. They don't come here to be educated on the District of Columbia. They have no idea that the District would close down if there was a close-down of the Federal Government. They would understand that I must do my job, and that is to take whatever steps I can to make sure that this unintended result does not occur. I'm asking to testify at the Rules Committee when the continuing resolution is considered. That is the resolution, as I indicated, that would keep the government open until December 15. It is interesting to know that with only a slight change the District of Columbia would not be an issue here. I want to thank the Republican appropriators who--it must be at least 10 years ago--corrected another consequence that the Congress never intended. The District budget used to be held up whenever the budget, of course, of the Federal Government was held up, and for the very same reason that it hadn't come to the floor. So you had a city whose budget was due out by September 30 which sometimes got out in November or December. This wreaked havoc on the opening of schools and on the ability of the city to contract because the budget was over here and hadn't been passed. It is important also to put on the record that the budget doesn't come here because any Member of the Congress is interested in the budget or thinks that their oversight is necessary to make sure that the budget is done correctly. In fact, the budget is virtually never looked at. What does happen when a budget comes here is that extraneous amendments that reflect the views, not of the District of Columbia, but of a Member who is offering them, often are attached to our budget. The Appropriations Committee has never interfered with the budget itself. How could they? The budget has been put together by D.C. Council subcommittees and committees and the city has a chief financial officer--the only jurisdiction in the United States that has a financial officer appointed for 5 years, cannot be fired except for cause, who has to pass on the budget and make sure that there is no overspending. The D.C. budget comes here out of tradition. It comes here because for more than 200 years it has come here while the Congress has been trying to figure out how to deal with the anomalous position that it has put its Nation's Capital in. So here it is. In order to avoid the budget getting out so late that you cripple or certainly make extremely difficult the ability of the city officials to run a big, complicated city, the appropriators agreed upon a small change. I'm asking us to act on that already existing change. That change says that in every CR there will be, no matter what the CR says, and most CRs say very little, that the District will be allowed to spend its own funds at the levels that have been approved by its council, and by the Mayor, at next year's level. That has had enormously important good effects on the city. I believe we will be in the upcoming CR in the same way. As the District's Member of Congress, I have to contemplate the possibility, however, that even on December 15 the government could close down. And I would have to, indeed, look at what would be even, perhaps, better, that it didn't close down but there was yet another CR. Imagine trying to run a big city in the United States on multiple CRs. That's what I'm trying to avoid. That's what no Member of Congress intends. I also have had to take precautions for the possibility that even the CR that comes before us--I'm hoping next week--could fail. If that CR fails, I also have a bill that would allow the District to run whenever the Federal Government shuts down, this year and in perpetuity. Again, if I am right that there is no Member who would like to shut down any local jurisdiction, and especially the Nation's Capital, then I think this bill would take care of it. I have to go now to the Rules Committee for the CR, the next step. That's the next opportunity to draw this matter to the attention of the House and to, therefore, by amendment allow the District to spend for the entire fiscal year, not from CR to CR, but for the entire fiscal year. I don't think that is asking too much, and I've never had an objection when I've tried to keep the District open. It has been difficult to do. Three times the District almost shut down in recent history because we got that close to it. The problem for the city when the city almost closes down runs close to being like if it does close down. The city can't assume the best; it has to assume the worst, so it has to call out its staff and its lead officials to prepare for a shutdown even if a shutdown does not occur. The only responsible thing for the city to do right now with only 5 session days left, at least as it now stands, because there is to be a recess beginning at the end of the month, is we've got to assume the status quo and we've got to assume the worst because it would be irresponsible not to. So, in addition, I have to put in a bill--that's in addition to the amendment--that would allow the District to remain open. To illustrate just how unintended would be a shutdown, the House needs to know that the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on which I sit, has passed a bill that would give the District more autonomy over its local budget and, importantly, would keep the District from shutting down. That bill now is pending and could come to the floor at any point. The President of the United States has in his budget a shutdown avoidance bill for the District, and the Senate Appropriations Committee has the same language in its bill. The House appropriators have taken the position that they do not believe the District should be shut down. Of course, they defer to the authorizers, as I indicated, and the Oversight Committee has legislation that has been voted out of committee that is now pending. I think any Member who has held local office--and by the way, I did not hold local office before I came to Congress--have, I think, a better idea of what such a threat means to a local jurisdiction and how much it is at odds with what both sides understand to be the American approach to federalism, when local jurisdictions get to run their own localities and States and, by the way, get to raise their own funds. That is what the District has done, and it has done it well. These frequent shutdown threats have had a very disruptive effect on the city and on its employees and on its residents. It does something that we, I'm sure, appreciate that no elected official wants to have happen: it casts a pall of uncertainty right when you're looking forward to a budget for the coming year. That kind of uncertainty already has had its effect. Wall Street, for example, understands that the District budget is not final until it somehow is passed out of the Congress. The District pays a premium--it pays a price--for that because there are two bodies, not one, that get a say over its local budget. No city should ever have to wonder whether it will be shut down. Shutdowns really don't occur at the local level because residents won't let it occur. They are close enough to the people so that that is not a threat you could much get away with at the local level. Here we are some levels above that, and most Members and most Americans don't know that there is local legislation that is put in that peril as I speak. The District has about 630,000 residents. It's growing well. People are moving into the city, not out. There are cranes all over town; and much of this comes out of the excellent management of the city, out of the way the city has conducted its economic affairs, out of the fact that it has an independent chief financial officer, who cannot be fired because he disagrees with the council or with the Mayor and, therefore, has to tell the truth. It's all worked together to make the District the kind of jurisdiction that the Congress, at least, should have no concerns about and, I believe, has no concerns about. The price the District would pay is hard for me to make clear to Members because it would have to occur before they felt it. We have come close to feeling it; and almost 20 years ago, we did, in fact, feel it. There are some parts of your services to the people that continue, but huge parts cannot because the Congress has not passed the budget, not because the Congress objects to the budget and not because any Member of this House desires that outcome. This House does not mean to hold the District budget as hostage. If it did, there would have been something the District could do to get out of the hostage fight. So what makes this so frustrating is that there is nothing we can give, nothing we can do to extricate ourselves from a fight that is wholly inside baseball within this Chamber and the Chamber across the way. To be sure, I have contacted my Senate allies; but, frankly, this has to be done here. We've got to get agreement on both sides of the aisle to the simple proposition that those of us who believe in the great and important freedoms of the Framers would least want to be held responsible for closing down a local jurisdiction, one with which we have no beef. This country was established on a pedestal of federalism. One thing we understand is the difference between a local jurisdiction and its rights and responsibilities and ourselves. If anything, there are Members of this Chamber who would want some of what the Federal government does no longer done by the Federal Government at all but, in fact, to be the work of local jurisdictions. Many in this Chamber not only support but, indeed, believe that local jurisdictions do a better job at governing than does any institution at the Federal level. I can, therefore, find no set of principles here from any Member of Congress that would be in play when the decision is made on my amendment to the continuing resolution or on the bill that I will introduce as a fallback in case it does not occur. As we go home, perhaps earlier than expected, to ponder what to do with keeping the Federal Government open, I ask that Members bear in mind that they would be closing not only Federal agencies but the District of Columbia Government. In the name of the people of the District of Columbia, I ask you, wherever we stand on the Federal Government, to allow the District of Columbia to move forward, to govern itself, and to take care of its day-to-day business. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the opening of the new Paul Laurence Dunbar Senior High School in the District of Columbia. Dunbar High School was the first public high school for African Americans in the United States, and has educated students in the District of Columbia for more than 140 years. Dunbar started in a church basement and had no formal home for its first 20 years. The new Dunbar High School is a green, state-of-the-art building that will inspire the new strides the school is making. Dunbar today is a neighborhood high school in a tough D.C. neighborhood, unlike the magnet school that attracted students from across the city to come to a high school known for its college preparatory curriculum. However, the school's rich history is an inspiration to the leaders of the school, students, and parents today. Dunbar was instrumental in making the District of Columbia a bulwark of education for almost a century, despite its segregated school system until the District of Columbia became one of the six Brown v. Board of Education cases. Children from all of the city's neighborhoods came to Dunbar, drawn by its storied reputation. That reputation was reinforced by Dunbar's record of graduating more distinguished African Americans than any high school in the country. Among them were Edward Brooke, the first black popularly elected United States Senator; Robert C. Weaver, the first black Cabinet member; Benjamin O. Davis, the first black general; Wesley Brown, the first black graduate of the Naval Academy; Charles R. Drew, the discoverer of blood plasma; and Mary Jane Patterson, the first African American to achieve a college degree. Dunbar also drew teachers with advanced degrees who would have been college professors, but for segregation. The school's reputation for excellence, in turn, attracted the most prominent colleges and universities annually to visit Dunbar to recruit students. Dunbar is facing its challenge with unflinching energy, but its new facility will ease the way, and its proud history will guide Dunbar to new accomplishments. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the opening of the new Paul Laurence Dunbar High School on August 19, 2013, and in wishing the school success in continuing its proud legacy in the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for the wise words of his opening statement. I also thank him for retrieving the views of law enforcement officials--inasmuch as we had no hearing on this bill. They were very informative. Madam Speaker, with most of the business of the Nation languishing with no action in this House, Republicans have rushed to the floor with these so-called ``messaging'' bills. Let's make sure we get the message: Republicans--the party that champions states' rights--want to preempt the States, to require Federal employees acting for the government to record conversations with clients. Republicans--the party that wants the Federal Government to operate like the private sector and pay people on the basis of merit--wants to deny bonuses to Federal employees who deserve them, regardless of merit. Perhaps worst of all, Madam Speaker, Republicans--who spent most of this term accusing IRS employees of denying due process to Republican organizations--now propose to fire SES employees without due process. And get this: the Republican version of due process is to give the employee the right to apply for reinstatement to the political appointee who fired him. Then, after the fact, having never had a hearing, the dismissed employee can now appeal to the MSPB. This last one, of course, reverses the age-old principle of innocent until proven guilty, but it's much worse. Not only is there no due process, there's no process at all. You're fired. That one is embarrassingly unconstitutional. These are messaging bills all right, Madam Speaker, and we get the message. Republican principles apply--except when they don't.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating the National Black Data Processing Associates (BDPA) on its 35th anniversary of service to the residents of the District of Columbia and, the national capital region and its 45 active chapters across the United States. Founded in May 1975 by Earl Pace and the late David Wimberly, BDPA was formed out of a concern shared by both men that minorities were not adequately represented in the information technology industry. The first BDPA chapter was organized in Philadelphia, PA in 1977. A year later, the second chapter was organized in Washington, D.C., and shortly thereafter, the third chapter was organized in Cleveland, OH. In 1979, BDPA was restructured as a national organization. As the oldest and largest African American information technology (IT) organization, comprised of over 2,000 African-American IT professionals as well as, science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) college students, BDPA's vision is to be a powerful advocate for their stakeholders' interests within the global, technology industry. Its mission is to be a global member-focused technology organization that delivers programs and services for the professional well-being of its stakeholders. BPDA continues to promote professional growth and technical development for the young people and those entering into information and communication technology (ICT) in academia and corporate America. We also appreciate BDPA and its 45 chapters for continuing to provide ICT opportunities for STEM students and professionals. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the 35th anniversary of the National Black Data Processing Associates, in congratulating them on their outstanding accomplishments and commitment to the residents of the District of Columbia and around the country, and in welcoming those attending the BDPA Annual National Technology Conference and Career Fair titled ``Diverse Opportunities In The Age of Convergence by Bringing Jobs Back to D.C.,'' on August 14- 17, 2013, at the Washington Hilton Hotel.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding. You know, it has been sad to have to sit here for so long and hear the Kafkaesque understanding of due process by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. In a word, due process has to come before the sanction, not after; before the loss of job, not after, or it means nothing. Today, of course, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2579 that would eliminate due process protections for senior executive servicemembers by allowing agency heads, political appointees, for the first time since the passage of the great civil service reforms in the early part of the 20th century, to fire Federal employees without giving them advance notice or an opportunity to address allegations against them before they are dismissed. This bill, in particular, gives real credence to the view that the series of bills on the floor today are an attack on Federal employees. H.R. 2579 would reverse the long-settled principle of ``innocent until proven guilty'' to ``guilty until proven innocent.'' Employees could be immediately fired by the politically appointed agency head. They could get their job back only by accepting the burden of proof to prove their innocence. It's not enough that employees would be notified of the reasons of their removal and would have 30 days to respond. They're gone. They're fired immediately. No due process rights like those currently in place: at least 30 days notice; representation by an attorney; a written decision; a right to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The absence of due process and of standards that the political appointee must use in making the decision to fire is nothing short of breathtaking. Under this bill, the agency head, one person, one political appointee, determines whether the employee knowingly acted in a manner that--get this--``endangers the interest of the agency mission.'' What could be broader than that? You could be fired for anything under that standard. One person decides whether the employee's removal is ``necessary in the interest of the United States.'' Wow, let's rein that in somewhat. One person decides that other procedures prescribed in other provisions of law just can't be invoked; they're not good enough. There you have it--judge and jury--exactly what the civil service system was developed to avoid, exactly what the Constitution says we must avoid. If you believe in the Constitution, it is important not to demagogue, but rather to explain to the public why every State, local, and Federal government puts employees--

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman. Why is it that every unit of government puts employees they want to fire, they know they want to fire them, on administrative leave with pay while due process proceeds, even when the person is accused of serious offenses? Because the employer, my friends, is the government. That's the difference. The employee has certain due process rights that the same employee would not have if the employer were a private business. That is civics 101, gentlemen. Justice Powell, writing in Arnett v. Kennedy about due process rights of employees said: Due process is conferred not by legislative grace, but by constitutional guarantee. This bill comes from a Republican House that requires that Members state the constitutional basis for every bill introduced in this House. This bill expresses a Republican frustration that Lois Lerner of the IRS was placed on administrative leave with pay. Sorry folks, you're not allowed to support the Constitution only when you like the results. Let's defeat this ``prove your innocence'' departure from the Constitution of the United States.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the District of Columbia Incentives for Business and Individual Investment Act, to reauthorize the federal tax incentives for investment in economically distressed areas in the District of Columbia, commonly known as the D.C. empowerment zone, and the D.C. $5,000 first-time homebuyer tax credit, both of which expired at the end of 2011. This bill would reauthorize the tax incentives through the end of 2015, and would be retroactive for 2012 and any period in 2013 during which they remain lapsed, consistent with similar empowerment zone legislation. The empowerment zone incentives include a special capital gains rate, expanded tax-exempt bond financing, additional expensing for equipment purchases and a wage credit of up to $3,000. The D.C. tax incentives were due to be extended with the package of temporary tax provisions that Congress regularly extends, commonly known as ``tax extenders.'' However, the D.C. tax incentives, for the first time, were not included in the most recent tax extenders package, the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA or P.L. 112-240), which was approved at the beginning of the year. This omission was possible, and we believe occurred, because the D.C. empowerment zone was separately and specially created in 1997, several years after the first, similar urban empowerment zones were created. Although the D.C. tax incentives, as well as a small number of other expiring temporary tax provisions, were not extended in ATRA, Congress, in the same bill, recognized that the benefits of incentives for investment in economically distressed communities outweighed their costs when it extended all the other empowerment zones. This same logic has particularly strong application to the D.C. tax incentives. The Republican Party Platform first proposed the D.C. tax incentives in 1996, a year before Congress created them. Republicans, who saw D.C. as a demonstration for what tax incentives could do to revitalize a city, wanted to make the entire District of Columbia an empowerment zone. The Republican platform stated, ``We endorse proposals by the congressional Republican Leadership for dramatic reductions in federal taxes . . . within the District . . . . A Republican president will make it part of a comprehensive agenda to transform the nation's capital into a renewal community, an enterprise zone leading the way for the rest of urban America to follow.'' Every Republican platform since 1996 has indicated strong support for one or more of the D.C. tax incentives. Senate and House Republicans took the lead in the creation of the D.C. tax incentives after an unprecedented financial crisis revealed the unique peril for a city required to pay for many state-like functions. They reasoned that the tax incentives would revive and sustain the District, and where they have been applicable, they have met that test. The success of the tax incentives is a vindication of the work of the cosponsors. The D.C. tax incentives were proposed by, among others, then-Senators Trent Lott (R-MS), Connie Mack (R-FL), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Spencer Abraham (R-MI), Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT), as well as by then-Representative Amo Houghton (R- NY), and have always been embraced by both Republican and Democratic Congresses and presidents. The wisdom of the bipartisan use of modest, targeted tax incentives has been amply and visibly demonstrated in the economic resurgence in parts of the city designated as empowerment zones, including parts of downtown Washington. Effects of the empowerment zone incentives are apparent throughout the city, but among the most visible are the Penn Quarter neighborhood, which had limited residential, commercial and retail spaces and is now a popular mixed-use neighborhood, and the vibrant area around the Verizon Center, then a virtual downtown slum but now surrounded by offices, restaurants and nightlife. Before the business tax incentives, the city found it difficult to retain, much less attract, businesses. However, one of the business tax incentives enabled the city government to issue more than $155 million in tax-exempt bonds on behalf of for-profit and non-profit entities for capital projects. For example, $15 million was issued for the construction of the International Spy Museum, which has brought the added benefit of increasing tourism. In addition to the business tax incentives, the $5,000 homebuyer tax credit has provided invigorating nourishment to the District's badly starved residential tax base. This credit, which applied citywide, almost immediately reversed the city's alarming residential decline. According to the 2010 census, the District gained population (5.2%) for the first time since the 1950 census, with much of this increase traceable to the homebuyer tax credit. Not only did the homebuyer tax credit staunch the taxpayer exodus for the first time in decades, but with the stability that the credit initiated, other individuals and families began moving to the city. The District is attracting 1,100 residents a month, but these are mostly young, unmarried people. However, the goal of growing the residential tax base by 100,000 to ensure sustainability, set by Alice Rivlin, chair of the D.C. Financial Control Board, as well as a respectable business tax base, is far from being achieved. The city's residential tax base remains well below the Washington metropolitan region and the nation, where it trails all 50 states. In 2012, the homeownership rate in D.C. was 45%, compared to the national rate of 65.4%. D.C.'s homeownership rate was also lowest among the 75 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas and significantly lower than in the statistical area for the Washington metropolitan region, which was 66.9%. The reauthorization of the homebuyer tax credit is essential if the District is to reach the 100,000 residents the Financial Control Board said was required for the city to sustain itself. For all of its recent economic progress, the District remains a city without a state backstop. Recognizing this anomaly, Congress passed the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, but the city continues to operate many state-like services, such as higher education, roads and bridges, and health and human services. Furthermore, the federal government continues to impose significant revenue constraints on the District in the Home Rule Act, including a tax exemption on the federal government's use of the city's most valuable real property, a federal limit on the height of buildings in the District and a prohibition on taxing non-resident income. Now, the city's low-income neighborhoods east of the Anacostia River and in Northeast are on the brink of developing economically, similar to the development experienced in other parts of the District such as NoMa and Capitol Riverfront. The new headquarters for the U.S. Coast Guard will open in August, the first in a complex of buildings Congress has authorized for the federally owned West Campus of the St. Elizabeths hospital. The tax incentives have demonstrated that they can revitalize the eastern half of the nation's capital. Particularly after the recent recession, the business and homebuyer tax incentives are essential for these neighborhoods to see the revival that the incentives have contributed to in downtown and near-in neighborhoods. Withdrawing these incentives, particularly after they have proven effective elsewhere in city, leaves the nation's capital with essentially half of a revival, and would be tragically timed just as the lower-income parts of the District, which need the incentives most, are ready for residential and commercial redevelopment. There is no reason to extend incentives to the other large empowerment zone cities but not to the nation's capital, which lacks many of the advantages of other cities. Like the health of many other cities, the District's fiscal health has improved since the tax incentives were established in 1997, but the incentives continue to be indispensable for ensuring that lower-income areas of the city are part of the city's economic progress. It would be tragic to single out the nation's capital as the only empowerment zone city not to be renewed just as the eastern sections of the city are about to take off. As essential as the federal incentives have been, their costs have been de minimis compared to the billions of dollars in construction, new local revenue and new taxpayers the incentives have generated. They deserve to be extended. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, this is a slash-and-burn budget. I don't know why we bother. Whether you're looking at the community block grant or the section I'm going to say a few words about, the Amtrak section, you can see what we're about--we're supposed to reauthorize a highway bill this year and a railway bill this year. That certainly won't matter if the Transportation and HUD appropriations bill simply ignores authorized infrastructure spending and building. The federal government has Amtrak because the private sector insisted that we take it. They showed, they proved that you can't run a railroad without public subsidy. Amtrak has done an amazing job considering how little public subsidy it has gotten. The private sector gave it to us because they couldn't handle the operating expenses, and they couldn't handle the capital costs. Now, Amtrak, by the ticket, is basically handling the operating expenses. Shame on us that we will not come forward to do our part with the capital expenses. With a 37 percent cut in capital expenses, that is the way, Mr. Chairman, to run a railroad into the ground that otherwise is doing very well on its own dime. There is a thirty-five percent difference between the House and Senate bills. The Republican bill is bipartisan. Yet, we're about to pass a bill here that nobody would consider in the Senate, and that the President would have to veto. Why are we going through these appropriations exercises that amount to nothing? Amtrak is more than sustaining itself. Virtually each month this year, it has had record ridership. Amtrak actually recovers almost 80 percent of its operating costs out of ticket revenue. That's amazing. It seems to me Amtrak ought to be rewarded rather than, as this bill does, be punished. Amtrak carries 31 million passengers every year, and it keeps increasing. Travellers are preferring rail and 20,000 people across 47 States work for Amtrak. Yes, we know about it best here in the East, where Amtrak also has 1 million daily commuters. This is our national railroad. It's unbelievable that we would be content to see every single nation in the world that considers itself an advanced nation be generations ahead of us on railroad development. We are two generations behind, for example, on high-speed rail. Yet there are zero dollars in this bill for high-speed rail. Amtrak is very well managed. In the committee we have heard what they have done and how they have done it. But they can't manage without at least some recognition from the Congress that we, too, have a role to play in the railroad. No railroad in the world is unsubsidized. This one is subsidized very little. It is still able to run most of its trains over 100 miles an hour. We ought to understand who we're talking about. We're not just talking about the Acela from the District of Columbia to New York. Among the 25 busiest Amtrak stations are Seattle, Harrisburg, and Bakersfield, California. At a time when the airlines are in trouble and have reduced their operations, Amtrak keeps growing in ridership each month. I have a winning operation here. But this bill sends it back into losing for us. We don't need to do that. We have a railroad that offers middle class jobs to 20,000 people, 200 of them in the District of Columbia. Let's do what we need to do in the T-HUD bill. I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Gallego