Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Chair, the underlying bill is a special insult to the Americans who voted for the new majority on the promise of jobs. They might forgive that the mjority does not know how to produce jobs or that they haven't produced jobs yet, but they will never understand a bill that will make history on the number of jobs it affirmatively destroys. The deficit commission warned about cuts that are at the centerpiece of the majority's bill, cuts that don't distinguish between short-term and long-term deficits, between the job-producing role of government investment during an economic turndown and the needed savings to reduce the long-term deficit, which must go on simultaneously; but the majority loses its focus entirely with its obsession on snatching local authority, over local funds from the District of Columbia. While the majority wants to make draconian cuts in most Federal programs, putting at high risk the economy itself, it simultaneously expands Federal power into the local funds and affairs of a local jurisdiction, the District of Columbia. Three riders in this bill are anti-self-government, having nothing to do with the underlying bill or the Federal Government. Particularly cruel, apart from the home-rule violation, is the attempt to reimpose a provision that would keep the District of Columbia from spending its own local funds on needle exchange programs. If this is reimposed, a rider I got off during the last few years, it will cost lives and spread HIV, as it did for the prior 10 years. But they're not through there. The majority takes a hard-line approach, even when I asked for and was denied the right to testify before the Judiciary Committee on yet another rider, a rider that would keep local District of Columbia funds from being spent on abortions for poor women. What business is it of any Member of this body how the District of Columbia spends its own money, which it raises from its own residents and businesses? Mr. Speaker, they go further. They try to reestablish a voucher program in the District, ignoring a compromise reached last Congress to allow every child now with a private school voucher to remain in the program until graduation. It disregards the fact that the District has the largest public charter school alternative in the United States. Almost half of our children attend these schools. If the majority wants to give money for alternatives to public schools, then they've got to respect our choice. Republican support for vouchers--only in the District of Columbia-- exposes them for where they really stand on vouchers and school choice. There is wholesale support in this body for public charter schools. They will not bring a voucher bill for the Nation to the floor because polls and referenda in the States show there is zero national support for private school vouchers. Instead, Republicans single out the District and only the District, ignoring the city's own extraordinary, flowering public charter school program. Our choice, not someone else's who has nothing to do with us. You cannot try on this floor to slash Federal power while dictating local policy and how local money should be spent. Those two don't go together.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, this non-controversial bill, which the House passed by unanimous consent in the 111th Congress, will allow development at the Southwest Waterfront in the District of Columbia. This bill will benefit not only D.C. residents, but also regional residents, businesses and national and international visitors, by permitting the District to extend docks and increase recreation and maritime activity just an eyeshot from the U.S. Capitol. The District urgently needs this bill to finalize plans for the Southwest Waterfront, which it hopes to convert into an attractive location for residents and visitors alike. In order for the District to make these improvements, the Federal Government must redesignate part of the water designated by the Federal Government as the Washington Channel, so that more and larger docks can be built by the District to accommodate increased boating and waterside activity. The original width of the Washington Channel was established in the early 1800s, prior to the construction of East Potomac Park, to accommodate industrial and maritime commerce at the Southwest Waterfront. Today, however, the Southwest Waterfront is no longer a major port and does not accommodate large vessels. In fact, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have agreed that this redesignation will not affect navigation interests or adversely affect navigation safety. I ask Members to support this non-controversial change to reinvigorate the Southwest Waterfront for the city, region and visitors to enjoy.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The President has begun a review of regulations. Madam Speaker, you would think the majority would do something like declare victory. Instead, they prematurely held an oversight hearing with business, a one-sided hearing, rather than joining issue by calling in the agencies one by one to see what kind of a review the President is, in fact, doing. I favor government for the good of the general welfare; therefore I have always hated government bureaucracy and regulations that make government, even the best of government, look bad. I headed a Federal agency, and I believe I will be more remembered for streamlining its processes than for the underlying mission. I eliminated a huge backlog of cases, and settled cases which had usually been carried to the full stream. Guess what? When we started to settle them, we got more remedies. Instead, look at what the majority has done. They have changed the subject from jobs to reducing Federal power in the District of Columbia. One way in which they have done this is to spend their first month on bills which usurp control of local power and local funds from a local jurisdiction. That is the opposite of what they have claimed they want to do. They have introduced a harsh anti-choice bill. What is the District of Columbia's spending of its local funds doing in such a bill? Yesterday, they introduced a bill to wipe out the local gun laws of a local jurisdiction after the courts have now found them to be constitutional. They have introduced a DC-only private voucher bill, not a national bill, after a compromise on vouchers for DC was already achieved and even though the District of Columbia has a home rule alternative, the largest alternative school system in the United States, where almost half of our children are in public charter schools.

Ms. NORTON. I am grateful. The majority has taken regulation, a subject on which there is a basis for areas of consensus, and has polarized it. They have broken their promises on jobs--look, no jobs bill--and on reducing Federal power by trying to literally usurp power from a local jurisdiction and dictate to that local jurisdiction from the Federal Government what it should be doing.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the sixth in our series of bills, ``Free and Equal D.C.,'' to give District of Columbia residents the self-government and democracy enjoyed by other American citizens. The bill, the District of Columbia District Attorney Establishment Act of 2011, would establish the Office of the District Attorney for the District of Columbia, headed by a district attorney elected by D.C. residents, to prosecute the local criminal laws of the District, now handled by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, a federal official. The bill effectuates a 2002 advisory referendum, approved by 82 percent of D.C. voters, on the creation of an office of the district attorney, headed by a locally elected district attorney. There is no law enforcement issue of greater importance to D.C. residents, or on which they have less say here, than the prosecution of local crimes. A U.S. attorney has no business prosecuting the local criminal laws of a jurisdiction, an anomaly from the past that is out of place in 21st century home-rule D.C. The goal of the legislation is to put the District of Columbia on par with every other local jurisdiction in attention to its local criminal laws. Under the bill, the locally. elected district attorney would become the city's chief legal officer. The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia would continue to handle federal matters, like the other U.S. attorneys in our country. As presently constituted, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia is the largest in the country, only because it serves as the local city prosecutor. The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia needs to be freed up to handle national security and other vital federal cases, particularly in the post-9/11 nation's capital. Amending the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to create a local district attorney would be an important development toward our goal of achieving true self-government. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Giant Foods on its 75th anniversary of service to the residents of the District of Columbia and the national capital region. Throughout its 75 years, Giant, as it is commonly known, has been known for its high-quality food and customer service. Beginning in 1936, when the first Giant opened in the District of Columbia, our city has embraced its convenient neighborhood locations, bargain prices, and quality customer service. We appreciate Giant's long presence in the District and its continuing service to our city throughout population growth and transportation and infrastructure development here. We are particularly grateful that Giant has always adapted to the ever changing needs of the community, offering pharmacies, BonusCard programs, which come with special product discounts, Peapod, a home-delivery grocery service, and Super Giant, a department store that offers bulk items at reasonable prices. Giant has become such a focal point and meeting place for residents that my office frequents Giants in the District for my Government-to-Go program, which offers casework services in the community to assist District residents with federal concerns, saving them from having to visit my offices. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the 75th anniversary of Giant Foods.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I very much thank the gentleman not only for his remarks today but for the extraordinary work he did. He's right. I was pushing, but he was the real pusher. He was the man at the steering wheel, and he kept doing it until all those riders got off. And I want to thank the gentleman, yes, from New York, but who has not forgotten his roots, the gentleman's roots in Puerto Rico, because his roots have enabled him to empathize with people who may not have the kind of democracy he holds to be emblematic of this country. So you don't have to be one of us, it seems to me, to feel what we are feeling. You have to think about your own roots, about what matters to you, and particularly about the issues that have driven you in your life. And I think you will come to the conclusion that you should not expect for others what you would not have wanted for yourself. And when the gentleman from New York mentioned Puerto Rico, he also reminds me----

Ms. NORTON. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to claim a half hour this afternoon to speak about the citizens of the Nation's Capital, who are full and equal citizens of the United States of America; that Nation's Capital that was born with the Nation itself, was born with the Constitution. Among the Nation's oldest citizens are the citizens of this very city where the Congress does its work. Now, there is a complicated relationship between the Federal Government and the Nation's capital, but one thing has never been complicated: The Founders and every American ever since have understood that the citizens of the Nation's capital are entitled to the same constitutional rights and democratic rights as every other American citizen. I have come to the floor because I think many Members who are incumbents may have forgotten, and the largest class of new Members may be surprised by what they may be about to experience on this floor with respect to a local jurisdiction that they know nothing of and that they have nothing to do with. The new Members have come with a special distaste for Federal intervention, even into Federal affairs, and I respect that. I think that they, perhaps, would be among the first Members to recognize that the powerful Federal Government should never snatch local control from a local jurisdiction. Indeed, you may be about to experience something that is so much of a surprise that it will be a kind of an out-of-body experience when you're asked to actually consider a budget that this Congress had nothing do with, a budget for which every living cent was raised by the people I represent. You may be asked to overturn local laws simply because they are different from the laws you would have passed in your own local jurisdictions and where there is no Federal imprimatur on these local laws at all. Now, gradually, Congress has come to understand that the United States loses its own credibility as the leader of democracy around the world when it does not treat the citizens of a nation's capital as full and equal citizens. Congressional jurisdiction over the District of Columbia appears in the Constitution; but in 1973, Congress recognized that it was wrong--wrong--to rule the local jurisdiction from the Congress, so it delegated what we call home rule, or the right to self- government, to the District of Columbia. That marked an historic realization that local residents must govern themselves locally, that it was wrong that the Nation's capital was the only place--this place where Congress meets--with no local democracy, where hundreds of thousands of its citizens had no say on their own local affairs. I know it's hard to believe that this could have ever occurred anywhere in the United States. Local control is among the very first principles of the founding of our country; but only in 1973 did your Nation's capital get an elected government, an elected Mayor, and an elected city council. A lot of that had to do with, to be fair, southern Democrats. Although the District for 150 years was a majority white district, the old-time southern Democrats saw the large African American population here as a reason to keep the District from having any local self-government. Republicans weren't much a part of that, and I hope they won't be much a part of it today. The promise to delegate the same kind of local control to the residents of the Nation's capital, as we assume, even without thinking, is the case for every other local jurisdiction, has been mostly kept. Mayor Vincent Gray runs the city. The City Council passes the laws-- except when Congress decides or, rather, when some Members of Congress decide to break the promise of democracy and intervene into the affairs of a local jurisdiction for one reason and one reason only: that they simply disagree with the decisions the local jurisdiction has made. Imagine if in your own districts, from this Congress, I disagreed with some of your decisions, and I could then overturn those decisions. My colleagues, I am asking you not to do to us what you would not have done to you. We ask only that you apply the same standard of democracy here in the Nation's capital that you insist on in your own districts. You cannot be for one standard of democracy for the Egyptian people, who are now rising up to demand democracy, without being for the same standard in your own Nation's capital. You wouldn't intervene and tell the Egyptians what to do even when you disagreed with it. We ask you in the name of the Founders, in the name of American democracy: Do not do that to the residents of the District of Columbia. It is impossible to justify a standard for democracy that makes an exception when you disagree with the decisions that have been made. I respect that new Members abhor Federal intervention even in areas of legitimate Federal concern. The new Members, some of them tea party members, would like to withdraw Federal intervention from areas long understood to be of some concern to the Federal Government. Their view is that, even in these Federal matters, there is too much Federal Government. What about Federal intervention where there is no Federal concern whatsoever? What about Federal intervention where there is no Federal money whatsoever but only billions of dollars raised by the local taxpayers? What about Federal intervention where there is no Federal law involved but only the law of the local jurisdiction? If you think there is too much Federal Government in what we do now, surely you would not tolerate any Federal Government in the local matters of a local jurisdiction, especially in your own Nation's capital. We raise our own funds, $3 billion, which is more than that of several States. We want to spend it as we see fit, just as my colleagues do in their jurisdictions. Without any Federal intervention, they spend their own local funds as they see fit. Yet, yesterday, there was a shameful, shameful experience here. There was a hearing on a Federal bill. The Federal bill had to do with restrictions on Federal funding for abortions, restrictions that some of us thought were airtight as it was. I happen to be for the right of a woman to choose, but I have always respected my colleagues who have another point of view. That matter is being decided, as it should be because it involves Federal funding, in several committees of the Congress. What in the world was the District of Columbia doing in a bill having to do with Federal funding for abortions? What was this language doing in that bill? And I am quoting: The term ``Federal Government'' includes the government of the District of Columbia. It does not, my colleagues. We are a local government. We are not your colony. Declaring that the District of Columbia is part of the Federal Government for purposes of intervening into our local affairs, to tell us how to spend our local money, is an unprecedented violation of the District's right to self-government. The District of Columbia provision was entirely unrelated to the Federal abortion funding purposes of the bill. If there is to be abortion funding in a local jurisdiction--and there is today local funding throughout the United States, using local money, in local jurisdictions--if it can be done anywhere in the United States with local funds, how could anyone justify keeping the people of the District of Columbia from using their own local funds in precisely the same way? My Republican colleagues have come and taken control of the Congress on the wings of a promise of jobs--well, where's your jobs bill? That's what the people in my city want to know, some of them from poor wards which have 20 and 30 percent unemployment. Why are we looking at the District of Columbia, not for the jobs you said you would provide, but for how we spend our local funds on abortion for low-income women? What business is it of yours how we spend our local money? Get out of our affairs. You've got enough to tend to here. Why focus on one local jurisdiction? If you want to deal with Federal funding of abortion, fight fair. Deal with it here, man to man, woman to woman. Don't cross the line between democracy and autocracy and dictate; because that's what you're trying to do, dictate to a local jurisdiction how it's to spend its own local funds which you had nothing to do with raising. Shame on the Judiciary Subcommittee, because I asked for the right to testify simply to indicate why the District of Columbia should be taken out of this bill, and I was denied the right to testify. I have been in this body for two decades. I recall no circumstance in which a Member was denied the right to make a few remarks before the hearing, and certainly no circumstance of denial of a Member to make remarks when her district and her district alone was in the bill. What are you afraid of? Would not elementary fairness and say, All right, Congresswoman Norton, we don't have a lot of time for you, but you're in the bill, so here's 2 minutes? I was entitled to that in the name of fairness. But you have, many of you in this Congress have given disproportionate time to the District of Columbia. There's been introduced a bill to impose private school vouchers on the District and the District alone. What's wrong with you? What are you afraid of? If you're for vouchers, put a national vouchers bill on the floor. I know why there is no national vouchers bill on the floor; because there have been referendums in many of the States on vouchers, and every last referendum has been defeated because the people of the United States say over and over again that if you have one red cent, you better spend it on our public schools. There's already been a compromise on this issue. The District of Columbia was singled out for vouchers, even though we have the largest alternative public charter school system in the country. Would that the Members of this body, on either side of the aisle, had almost half of their children in alternative schools, public charter schools, that residents themselves have come forward to establish as an alternative to their public schools. Why pick on us? If vouchers are so good, I challenge you, put a bill on the floor. Let those who want it come forward. You are afraid. You don't have the guts. You pick on us because you can. It's wrong. A compromise was reached. The compromise allowed those who are now attending voucher schools to remain in those schools until they graduate. No compromise is enough for those who believe in a zero sum game. The District's home rule public charter school alternative is a model for the Nation. Moreover, charter schools enjoy the strongest kind of bipartisan support in this Congress. What's wrong with what we're doing? Why aren't we being complimented and commended for having a public charter school system where almost half our kids attend? In your district, you will find that your local school boards, your States keep charter schools from coming forward. That's not happened here, in part because during the last Republican Congress, under Speaker Gingrich, when he came and also discussed vouchers with me, I asked that we do a bill for charter schools instead, and out of respect for home rule, he did. Where is that respect for local control in this body today? Our charter schools have long waiting lists. We could use any money that the Congress has to help these children find places in our own charter schools. This is the last district you want to impose vouchers on, precisely because we've heard the call that when there are children who are not being well educated in at least some of your public schools--and I am a strong supporter of our public schools. I'm a graduate of the D.C. public schools, but I do concede that there are some children who don't have access to the best education. Well, we've done something for them. Don't punish us for it by imposing a voucher system on us that we do not want. Last year, I had asked that there be placed in the omnibus bill $5 million for voucher parents to go to public charter schools, because when I met with my voucher parents, they said--or many of them said-- they had tried to get into our public charter schools and could not because of long waiting lists. That's where the demand is. That's where the need is. We want our choices to be respected. Sure, we respect that there may be jurisdictions who would, in fact, wish vouchers. Give them the opportunity. Don't impose vouchers on people who have chosen another alternative. I'm not sure why one local jurisdiction would command so much attention from a new majority who convinced the American people that they would put jobs first. I'm not sure why, but I am sure of this, that if you want to direct your attention someplace else, there must be a lot of places you can go besides the District of Columbia. I am going to be on this floor often making sure that Members understand who the District of Columbia is, what it expects, and how it expects to be treated. Now, I see on the floor the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), and I appreciate that he's come down, because it's one thing for me to try to get all of the riders, the anti-home rule riders, unfair home rule riders off of the District of Columbia, but I certainly could not do that by myself. I'm not even a member of the Appropriations Committee, but we sure had a true patriot on that committee who did not rest until he saw to it that all the riders, riders which violated the self-government rights of the District of Columbia in the worst way, were removed. So citizens of the District of Columbia will be forever grateful for the work of Representative Serrano, the then chairman, now ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services which has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia as well. We will be forever grateful for the extraordinary way that he kept at it year by year until he had removed each and every one of those attachments. And I am pleased to relinquish some time to the gentleman, but I do need to know how much time I have.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Legislative Autonomy Act of 2011, to end the unnecessary and redundant congressional review of District of Columbia legislation. This bill would eliminate the congressional review period for civil (30 legislative days) and criminal (60 legislative days) legislation passed by the District of Columbia. Under the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, if a congressional resolution disapproving a D.C. bill is signed into law during the congressional review period, that bill does not become law. The congressional review period, which is limited only to those days when Congress is in session, delays D.C. bills from becoming law, often for many months. The delays force the D.C. Council to pass most bills several times, using a cumbersome and complicated process in which bills are passed on an emergency, temporary, and permanent basis to ensure that the operations of this large and rapidly changing city continue uninterrupted. The D.C. Legislative Autonomy Act would allow bills passed by the D.C. Council and signed by the mayor to become law immediately. My bill would do no more than align the Home Rule Act with congressional practice over many decades. Since the 1973 Home Rule Act, of the more than 4,500 legislative acts transmitted to Congress, only three resolutions to disapprove a D.C. bill have been enacted--in 1979, 1981, and 1991--and two of those involved distinct federal interests. 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 formal disapproval 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 phantom process that Congress has itself discarded. The wastefulness of the layover process is all the more apparent considering that my bill does not prevent review of District laws by Congress. Under clause 17 of section 8 of article I of the U.S. Constitution, the House and the Senate may scrutinize every piece of legislation passed by the D.C. Council, and, using that authority, change or strike such legislation at any time if it desired. My bill would only eliminate the automatic hold placed on local 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 both Congress and the District. The bill would benefit the city's bond rating, which is affected by the shadow of congressional review and the delay in the finality of District legislation. The limited legislative autonomy granted in this bill would allow the District to realize the greater measure of meaningful self-government and home rule that it deserves, and has more than earned in the 37 years since the Home Rule Act became effective. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring the life of William Lockridge, who tirelessly served the residents of the District of Columbia for 25 years. A teacher by profession, William Lockridge devoted his life to improving education for the city's children and to community service for the people of the District of Columbia. He was a member of the D.C. State Board of Education and its longest serving member. Although born in Tennessee, raised in Chicago, and educated at Tennessee State University, in Memphis, William Lockridge became a quintessential Washingtonian, eager for many varieties of community service, once serving as Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner, president of the Alabama Avenue Task Force, president of the Ward 8 Democrats, board member of the Neighborhood Planning Council, the Parent Teacher Student Association, and the Action to Rehabilitate Housing, as well as a member of the National Alliance of Black School Educators, the D.C. Democratic State Committee, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. William was ubiquitous in his devotion to his community, but education was his first love. His vision runs through the D.C. Public Schools, where he worked as a teacher, parent advocate for students with special needs, and a truancy officer over his 15-year career. But William Lockridge wanted to do more. He wanted to change the public schools. He immersed himself in accomplishing this mission as the Ward 8 D.C. School Board member and then as the D.C. State Board of Education member for Wards 7 and 8 until the day he died. When it came to the children he represented in the communities east of the Anacostia River, William Lockridge would brook no compromise. So resolute was his advocacy that children everywhere in the District, particularly children from families of modest income, benefitted immensely from his service. Residents throughout the city were heartbroken when the trim, ever active William Lockridge fell suddenly and unexpectedly ill. From across the city, top officials and ordinary citizens alike flocked to the hospital and then to a vigil, where elected officials and residents spoke lovingly of William Lockridge, just below his hospital window. The Lockridge brand of passionate dedication to public service cannot be bottled. His devotion to the city's children and to their education got its authenticity from a unique source deep within the man. His work for those who needed him most became a part of William's identity. The District of Columbia and its children were the beneficiaries. Only William's own family, Wanda, his ``queen,'' as he called his wife, his two children, Joy and Stephan, and his four grandchildren, outranked his love for the city's children. Not content to tell other people how to raise and educate their children, Lockridge led by example as a model family man who lived what he taught, beginning at home, where children first learn by simply looking at their parents. William Lockridge left his beloved family and city far too soon, but he left them a complete and fulfilled life. He spent his productive life doing not only what gave his own life meaning. William Lockridge devoted his life to giving meaning to the lives of many others, especially the children of the District of Columbia. I ask the House to join me in honoring the worthy life of William Lockridge.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, next to voting rights, the highest priority for District of Columbia residents is to achieve the right to control the funds they themselves raise to support their city, as resident in other jurisdictions do. Therefore, today I introduce a bill, the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act of 2011, to allow the District's local taxpayer-raised budget to take effect immediately when passed by the city, without being subject to affirmative congressional approval. Control over the dollars raised by local taxpayers is central to local control, the oldest American principle. Moreover, permitting the city's local budget to become law without first coming to Congress would have multiple practical benefits for both the city and Congress. For the city, a timely budget means: eliminating the uncertainty of the congressional approval process, which has a negative effect on the city's bond rating, adding unnecessary interest costs for local taxpayers; significantly increasing the District's ability to make accurate revenue forecasts; and reducing the countless operational problems that result because the city's budget cannot be implemented until Congress approves it. Of major importance, eliminating congressional approval of D.C.'s local budget would also align the District's fiscal year with the typical state and local government July 1st fiscal year instead of the congressional fiscal year, which starts in October, allowing ample time to prepare for the usual opening of schools in September. The D.C. local budget consumes valuable subcommittee, committee, and congressional floor time in both houses of Congress even though it is of interest only to those members who use it to promote their own issues, violating the principle of local self- government. Increasing recognition of the hardships and delays caused by the annual appropriations process has led Congress to begin freeing the city. When I was last in the minority, I negotiated an agreement with the appropriators that has ensured that the city's local budget is always included in the first continuing resolution, if it is not approved by the start of the fiscal year. This approach has ended the lengthy delay of the budget of a big city until an appropriations bill is passed, often months after October 1st. As a result, the city has been able to spend its local funds at the next year's level, even though the budgets for federal agencies are often delayed for months. We hope that this process, which ended some serious problems in the functioning of the local government, will continue. We nearly secured budget autonomy for the District in the last days of the lame duck session last Congress. I used an unusual procedure, getting subcommittee and committee authorizers to agree to place budget autonomy in the D.C. appropriations bill that was passed by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government. Unfortunately, Congress passed a Continuing Resolution instead of regular appropriations bills. If the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act is enacted, Congress would retain jurisdiction over the District of Columbia under article I, section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution. Because this authority allows Congress to make changes in the District's budget and laws at anytime, it is unnecessary to require a lengthy repetition of the District's budget process here. The time is overdue to permit the city to enact its local budget, the single most important step Congress could take to help the District better manage itself. Members of Congress were sent here to do the business of the nation. Members have no reason to be interested in or to become knowledgeable about the local budget of a single city. In the past, the House and Senate have more often than not passed the District's budget as is. Our bill takes the Congress in the direction it is already moving. Congressional interference into one of the most vital rights to self- government should end this year with enactment of the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act of 2011.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce three bills that provide different approaches for obtaining congressional representation and full democracy for the more than 600,000 American citizens who reside in the nation's capital and pay the full array of federal taxes that support the government of the United States, but have no voting representation in Congress. These bills are the New Columbia Admission Act, the District of Columbia Equal Representation Act (formerly titled the No Taxation Without Representation Act) and the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act. These are the first bills of our Free and Equal D.C. series--bills that address the missing rights to self- government and democracy that other American citizens enjoy--to be introduced in the coming weeks. I have introduced all three of these bills during different periods in the past. I introduce them today after listening to residents at the many Community Conversations I have held in each ward of the District since a dangerous gun amendment-- which would have eliminated all of the District's gun laws and would have done much more--forced delay of the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act in April 2010. These Community Conversations, as well as other constituent meetings and correspondence, have indicated that these three bills have significant support among D.C. residents. I introduce them today, a week after the new House majority eliminated the District's vote in the Committee of the Whole, despite a finding by the federal courts that this vote is constitutional. Recognizing that the House would not consider any approach to representation and full democracy for D.C. residents at this time, I am introducing bills that each had majority support in the District among residents during the years that each was under consideration. D.C. residents, in their quest for full democracy, have always embraced the approach that appeared most timely and possible. Because we are blocked from pursuing any approach at this time, I am introducing the bills that residents have indicated would have their continued support. These bills send a direct message to Congress that residents are undeterred in the pursuit of our rights, and the bills also will help ensure no weakening in the momentum residents have built here and throughout the country over the past several years for full democracy. However, I have not included a bill to fully or partially retrocede the District of Columbia to the State of Maryland, ideas that also have been mentioned for many years. Few District residents have indicated support for retrocession approaches, and, in our experience, even fewer Maryland public officials and residents support them. It is inconsistent with the District's pursuit of self-determination to impose upon another jurisdiction without consent from that jurisdiction. D.C. residents are entitled to nothing less than full and equal citizenship, which can only be achieved through statehood. Accordingly, the first bill I introduced when I came to Congress in 1991, the New Columbia Admission Act, would have made the District of Columbia the 51st state, the State of New Columbia. The New Columbia Admission Act would create a state from essentially the eight home-town wards of the District. However, the state would have no jurisdiction over the federal territory in the District of Columbia, consisting of most of the Washington that Members of Congress and visitors associate with Washington, DC, the capital of our country. The U.S. Capitol premises, the principal federal monuments, federal buildings and grounds, the National Mall and other federal property here would remain under federal jurisdiction, as elsewhere. Our bill provides that the State of New Columbia would be equal to the other 50 states in all respects, in that the residents of New Columbia would have all the rights of citizenship they are entitled to as taxpaying American citizens. New Columbia would have two senators and, initially, one House member. The New Columbia Admission Act has received significant support in the House in the past. In 1993, we got the first vote on statehood for the District of Columbia, with nearly 60 percent of Democrats and one Republican voting for the New Columbia Admission Act. The Senate held a hearing on its companion bill, introduced by Senator Ted Kennedy, but declined to hold a markup in committee or to consider it on the floor. Soon thereafter, the District, which is the only U.S. city that pays for state functions, found it necessary to ask the federal government to take over the cost of some state functions, posing fiscal barriers to entry into the Union on an equal basis, and the Democrats lost control of the House. This temporary setback led me to introduce the second best option then available, a bill for Senate and House representation for D.C. Today, I also introduce the District of Columbia Equal Representation Act, which would give the District of Columbia two senators and, initially, one House member. With statehood delayed, Senator Joseph Lieberman and I introduced this bill for several years as the No Taxation Without Representation Act. The House, which was controlled by Republicans, did not act on the bill. The Senate held hearings and marked up the bill in 2002, but did not bring it to the floor. Today, I also introduce the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, a bill for one House member, initially, for D.C. residents. In 2005, when I continued to be in the minority, then-Representative Tom Davis and I partnered on a bipartisan bill, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, giving House votes to Democratic D.C. and Republican Utah. The D.C. House Voting Rights Act marked the first time in decades that we achieved large House and Senate majorities for voting rights for D.C. residents, and brought the city closer than we have ever come to voting representation in more than two centuries. This bill likely would be law today had the gun lobby not insisted on adding an amendment that would not only have eliminated the District's gun laws, but also would have added measures making the nation's capital a virtually gun law-free jurisdiction. In introducing these bills, we lay down a marker of our determination to never relent or retreat until we have obtained each and every right to which we are entitled, whether through the frustration and anguish of the incrementalism that Congress has always forced upon us or with the full and complete set of rights, which would be achieved through statehood. We will be watchful to both make and seize every opportunity to pursue our rights, regardless of who controls Congress. We accept no imposed limit on our equal rights as American citizens, and we will pursue them all until the day when there is no difference in citizenship between residents of the District of Columbia and other American citizens.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, a gunman has underestimated the will and undaunted bravery of Gabby Giffords. Tragically, we have lost Gabe Zimmerman, her director of community outreach; her constituents; Judge John Roll; Christina Taylor Green; Phyllis Schneck; Dorwan Stoddard; and Dorothy Morris, all of whom were engaged in the very civic activities we most encourage, along with 13 others who were injured along with Congresswoman Giffords. Together, these Americans have brought this House together as never before for a much needed time of reflection. I am heartbroken for all who were in the line of fire and for their families. I focus now on Gabby because I cannot get her out of my consciousness. I am trying to understand her prescient fearlessness of her own safety in the days before the attempt on her life given what has happened to civil discourse in our country. Can Gabby's selflessness and her concerns for our country give us the fortitude to follow her example in assuming that it is not the safety of Members that is at risk? Do we dare follow Gabby in her search for ways to be at once resolute and respectful? Remarkable courage and determination have made Gabrielle Giffords the living manifestation of what Members of this institution and the citizens of our great country want to be. May Gabby Giffords' words prove as contagious as her courage.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentlelady from New York for yielding. Madam Speaker, for myself and for the Delegates from American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, the resident commissioner of Puerto Rico, I offered a motion earlier that the House conduct a full and complete study of the constitutionality of the vote in the Committee of the Whole for the Delegates which is eliminated by this rule. This is nearly the same motion that the Republicans offered when we first were granted the right to vote on the House floor. The delegate vote was challenged by the Republicans in the courts and found to be constitutional, however. Madam Speaker, this vote is a mere recognition of our American citizenship. The Delegates are no different from others in this House. It is one thing not to have the vote. It is quite another to be stripped of your vote. The vote is said to be symbolic by some. Well, to us it is symbolic. It is symbolic of the American citizenship of our constituents. It meant everything to us. There are differences among us, of course, but we ask you to think again about this vote and to restore the vote of the Delegates on the floor in the Committee of the Whole.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a motion that is at the desk.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 3481 to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which clarifies that the Federal Government, like private citizens and businesses, must take responsibility for the pollution it produces. This bill is the Senate companion to my bill, H.R. 5724, cosponsored by my good friends from Virginia and Arizona, Rep. Jim Moran and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. The bill passed the Senate with strong bipartisan support because the Senate understood that this is simply an issue of fairness and equity to users and a matter of managing pollution and protecting the environment, In fact, this bill simply clarifies current law, that the Federal Government has a responsibility to pay its normal and customary fees assessed by local governments for managing polluted stormwater runoff from federal properties, just as private citizens pay. The consequence of failing to pass this bill is that we give the Federal Government a free ride and pass its fees on to our constituents throughout the United States. Section 313 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act states, ``Each department, agency, or instrumentality . . . of the Federal Government . . . shall be subject to, and comply with all Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements . . . in the same manner, and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity including the payment of reasonable service charges.'' However, the Government Accountability Office issued letters to Federal agencies in the District of Columbia instructing them not to pay the District of Columbia's Water and Sewer Authority's (D.C. Water's) Impervious Area Charge. D.C. Water calculates the charges to manage stormwater runoff based on the amount of impervious land occupied by the landowner. Impervious surfaces, such as roofs, parking lots, sidewalks and other hardened surfaces are the major contributors to stormwater runoff entering the sewer system and local rivers, lakes and streams, causing significant amounts of pollutants to enter these waters. This bill clarifies that in my district and all others congressional districts, Federal agencies must continue to pay their utility fees instead of passing the fees to our constituents. Nothing in this Act was intended to affect the payment by the United States or any department, independent establishment, or agency thereof of any sanitary sewer services furnished by the sanitary sewage works of the District through any connection thereto for direct use by the government of the United States or any department, independent establishment, or agency thereof. The rules for those payments are set forth in law codified at section 34-2112 of the D.C. Code and nothing in this Act amends or otherwise affects those rules. This bill requires that Congress make available, in appropriations acts, the funds that could be used for to pay stormwater management charges, but not that the appropriations act would need to state specifically or expressly that the funds could be used to pay these charges. This bill is supported by the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the International City/County Management Associations, as well as the National Association of Clean Water Agencies. All of these national groups understand that stormwater management fees, without any exceptions, are necessary for managing and reducing water pollution caused by stormwater runoff. Moreover, they understand that many agencies in States and localities may stop paying their water and stormwater management fees if we do not act, putting even more financial burden on residents. Federal law has mandated that these local governments must collect these fees. No exemption has been granted to Federal facilities. Please support S. 3481 to clarify the original intent of the law. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 3481 to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which clarifies that the Federal Government, like private citizens and businesses, must take responsibility for the pollution it produces. This bill is the Senate companion to my bill, H.R. 5724, cosponsored by my good friends from Virginia and Arizona, Representative Jim Moran and Representative Gabrielle Giffords. The bill passed the Senate with strong bipartisan support because the Senate understood that this is simply an issue of fairness and equity to users and a matter of managing pollution and protecting the environment. In fact, this bill simply clarifies current law, that the Federal Government has a responsibility to pay its normal and customary fees assessed by local governments for managing polluted stormwater runoff from Federal properties, just as private citizens pay. The consequence of failing to pass this bill is that we give the Federal Government a free ride and pass its fees on to our constituents throughout the United States. Section 313 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act states, ``Each department, agency, or instrumentality . . . of the Federal Government . . . shall be subject to, and comply with all Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements . . . in the same manner, and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity including the payment of reasonable service charges.'' However, the Government Accountability Office issued letters to Federal agencies in the District of Columbia instructing them not to pay the District of Columbia's Water and Sewer Authority's, D.C. Water's, Impervious Area Charge. D.C. Water calculates the charges to manage stormwater runoff based on the amount of impervious land occupied by the landowner. Impervious surfaces, such as roofs, parking lots, sidewalks and other hardened surfaces are the major contributors to stormwater runoff entering the sewer system and local rivers, lakes and streams, causing significant amounts of pollutants to enter these waters. This bill clarifies that in my district and all other congressional districts, Federal agencies must continue to pay their utility fees instead of passing the fees to our constituents. Nothing in this Act was intended to affect the payment by the United States or any department, independent establishment, or agency thereof of any sanitary sewer services furnished by the sanitary sewage works of the District through any connection thereto for direct use by the government of the United States or any department, independent establishment, or agency thereof. The rules for those payments are set forth in law codified at section 34-2112 of the D.C. Code and nothing in this Act amends or otherwise affects those rules. This bill requires that Congress make available, in appropriations acts, the funds that could be used to pay for stormwater management charges, but not that the appropriations act would need to state specifically or expressly that the funds could be used to pay these charges. This bill is supported by The National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the International City/County Management Associations, as well as the National Association of Clean Water Agencies. All of these national groups understand that stormwater management fees, without any exceptions, are necessary for managing and reducing water pollution caused by stormwater runoff. Moreover, they understand that many agencies in states and localities may stop paying their water and stormwater management fees if we do not act, putting even more financial burden on residents. Federal law has mandated that these local governments must collect these fees. No exemption has been granted to Federal facilities. Please support S. 3481 to clarify the original intent of the law. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to support H.R. 1746, as amended, a bill to reauthorize the predisaster mitigation program. This program's authorization expires with the current continuing resolution. The predisaster mitigation program is authorized by section 203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, or the Stafford Act, and was first authorized by this committee in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. My subcommittee held a hearing in which we received testimony on empirical evidence that show that this predisaster mitigation program manages to get a substantial return on this investment, with some estimations as high as a 4-to-1 return to the national government. Examples of mitigation activities highlighted at the hearing include the seismic strengthening of buildings and infrastructure, acquiring repetitively flooded homes, installing shelters and shatter-resistant windows in hurricane-prone areas, and the building of ``safe rooms'' in houses and other buildings to protect from high winds. The subcommittee came to the conclusion that predisaster mitigation is effective in accomplishing the goal of reducing the risk of future damage, hardship, and loss from all hazards, including loss of life. H.R. 1746 would reauthorize the program for 3 years, make the minimum $575,000 or 1 percent of the total funds appropriated to carry out this section for the fiscal year, and codify the competitive aspects of the program. Senate changes to the bill include an explicit ban on earmarks or any congressionally directed spending, along with reducing authorization levels of $250 million annually to $180 million for fiscal year 2011, and $200 million for fiscal year 2012 and 2013. This legislation has been endorsed by the National Association of Counties, International Association of Emergency Managers, the Association of State Floodplain Managers, the National Emergency Management Association, the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies, and the American Public Works Association. In addition, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has requested a reauthorization of the predisaster mitigation program. This program has consistently shown to provide an excellent return on investment, and I ask Members of the House to support the bill that protects both lives and property. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials in the Record on the Senate amendment to H.R. 1746.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1746) to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to reauthorize the predisaster mitigation program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Ms. NORTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida. His kind and gentle words are typical of the way he has operated on the committee-- always in the most collegial fashion when he talks about the District of Columbia and its not experiencing what, for example, his own district does in Florida. I can only say we empathize with you in Florida and all over the country. We are all Americans; and every time that we sat together in hearings, we were, of course, cognizant of the fact that we were dealing with issues that affected the entire country. It has been a great pleasure to work with the ranking member. We worked together on each and every bill. I cannot think of a single bill on which we found a disagreement, where we had something that we wanted to change and where we didn't discuss it or staff didn't discuss it. I know Mr. Oberstar would very much appreciate your remarks as well. He is a one-of-a-kind chairman who had been here as a staff member with enormous influence, and then he became a chairman with outsized influence as well. I understand that my good friend Mr. Diaz-Balart thinks he has found sunnier shores on another committee, but I want him to know that I don't think he will ever have a better relationship with another Member on this side of the aisle. In the relationship that he and I have formed, it has come to be, indeed, a friendship. So I say to him, Until we meet again, Mr. Diaz-Balart. I want to simply emphasize, in closing, the little bit of money for which there is a great return for 3 years. The Federal Government spent a token amount, $500 million; but according to the CBO, the reduction in future losses associated with that small $500 million is $1.6 billion in present value. No wonder this bill passed in the other body. I urge my colleagues to approve this bill as well.