Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 136) authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for a celebration of Citizenship Day.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. First off, Mr. Speaker, may I thank the gentlewoman from California for her work on this bill and for managing this bill as well and explaining it to the House. I'm very grateful to the ranking member of the full committee for his work on this bill and his cooperation in helping us to move this bill forward. Mr. Speaker, this is nothing more or nothing less than a holdover from the old pre-Home Rule days in the District of Columbia. The Congress passed the Home Rule Act and intended that local laws would be a matter for the District of Columbia, and somehow, this got left out of the mix. And the OPM, the Office of Personnel Management, and its council's office has been vexed--that's the only word for it--vexed by these complaints that these sometimes come and sometimes don't. For example, advisory neighborhood commissioners, peculiar to the District of Columbia, are ``elected officials.'' They're unpaid. If you look at the council of the District of Columbia, almost all of them were advisory neighborhood commissioners. But somehow, people bring complaints against them when they run for office because they're not regarded in Federal law as elected officials. They're elected officials; unpaid, but they're elected officials. They run for office. Those are not matters that you would expect a Federal regulatory agency to pay any attention to. And I don't want the OPM, in fact, spending the time of its special council on the arcane laws of the District of Columbia. What this law says is you, D.C., will have to have your own Hatch Act. The Hatch Act was one of the great reforms in government. Perhaps there's no reform ever in government that's been more important than the Hatch Act. This bill can't go into effect until the District of Columbia has its own Hatch Act for its own local law, the way California and all the States of the Union have their own version of the Hatch Act. As I heard the ranking member say, When you're getting Federal money and you're involved in Federal matters--and often matters in the State are Federal matters--the Hatch Act applies as always. When you're dealing in D.C. with D.C. management, you need your own Hatch Act, and you need OPM to deal with the often more serious matters that affect the Federal Government when millions of dollars may be involved in Hatch Act violations. I want to thank my good friends from California, both of them, for their work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, the District of Columbia Hatch Act Reform Act of 2009 eliminates anomalous treatment of the District of Columbia which, alone among U.S. jurisdictions, still falls under the Federal Hatch Act as an uncorrected leftover provision from before the Congress made the District an independent jurisdiction that today enacts its own local laws. Fortunately, the House recognized that the present Federal Hatch Act jurisdiction over the District was inappropriate and obsolete and removed this Federal responsibility several years ago, but the Senate failed to act. H.R. 1345 will eliminate the double indignity of placing a local burden on the Federal Government while depriving the District of a responsibility that only local jurisdictions familiar with local laws can be expected to handle appropriately. H.R. 1345 retains Federal Hatch Act authority concerning prohibited partisan and political activity that applies to every State and locality upon receipt of Federal funds or functions, and importantly, requires the District to enact its own local version of the Hatch Act barring similar local violations before H.R. 1345 can become effective. Local Hatch Act violations in the District are rare, but the District needs its own Hatch Act to fully account and be responsible for local violations, with which only a local, objective body would be familiar. H.R. 1345 leaves in place the Federal Hatch Act restrictions that apply to other jurisdictions on the use of official authority, specifically as it relates to elections; the solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of political campaign contributions; the prohibitions on running for public office in partisan elections; and the use of on-duty time and resources to engage in partisan campaign activity when Federal funds or responsibilities are involved. My bill would remove only the Federal Hatch Act jurisdiction that applies to the District of Columbia and would require the District to enact its own local Hatch Act, similar to those in other jurisdictions, instead of requiring the Federal Office of Personnel Management, OPM, and its Special Counsel to devote staff time and other resources to investigation, fact-finding and judgment of unfamiliar local matters. In fact, OPM has asked for the Federal guidance my bill offers. In recent cases, OPM was confused by protests after citing an ANC (Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner) for violations of the Hatch Act when he ran for higher office, even though ANCs are ``elected officials'' under D.C. law and therefore should be permitted to run for higher office. As a result of the failure to clear up the confusion, the application of the Hatch Act to ANCs has been selectively enforced by OPM. For example, although OPM has filed cases charging Hatch Act violations against an ANC running for the D.C. Council, it more often has not filed when several members of the current D.C. City Council ran for the D.C. Council from positions as ANCs. These examples show the difficulty created because Congress has failed to conform D.C.'s local jurisdiction created by the Home Rule Act of 1974 with the OPM's Federal jurisdiction over Federal Hatch Act matters today. This is an uncomplicated and straightforward bill. It is not controversial, and it has been enacted by the House before. I ask that the House approve H.R. 1345.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 508 recognizes the contributions of general aviation and encourages general aviation activities. General aviation is a little recognized, major sector of the airline industry, which contributes $150 billion to United States direct and indirect economic output. I also want to mention the Transportation Security Administration Reauthorization Act of 2009, which included an important section setting up a general aviation working group within the Aviation Security Advisory Committee, to advise the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) on security issues in general aviation. This advisory group was established after the TSA began rulemaking on the Large Aircraft Security Program that threatened to swallow general aviation amidst burdensome and unnecessary regulations, suited for large commercial aircraft. Longstanding unattended issues and insufficient attention to the nation's important General Aviation sector are finally getting the attention they deserve. Along with other members of the House Committee on Homeland Security, I intend to see that General Aviation security issues are treated uniquely for the sector they administer. However, as most members who have sat in on any hearing with the FAA, TSA, DHS or any other security agency may now know, the District of Columbia's main airport, the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA), is uniquely hampered by impossibly restrictive regulations that have destroyed general aviation in the nation's capital, and arbitrary practices may be spreading to others. In the Homeland Security Committee, we have taken the important first steps to give detailed attention to this major section of the airline industry to the new administration. After 9/11 the restrictions on General Aviation in the nation's capital, in particular, became symbolic of arbitrary action against general aviation that could happen anywhere. Even though New York City was the epicenter of 9/11, the nation's capital is the only location that suffers under unique restrictions that have crippled general aviation here. In fact, there was no general aviation for four years. After joining in my complaints at hearings, the former Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Don Young, threatened to subpoena any agency that did not comply with a bill that aimed to compel the resumption of general aviation flights at DCA and to hold them in contempt if they refused to appear before the committee to report on progress. As a result, a plan finally was put in place with requirements, but the DCA Access Standard Security Program (DASSP) was almost worse than no plan at all. Before 9/11, general aviation activity at DCA accounted for \1/3\ (approximately 30,000) of the total annual operations at DCA. In contrast, in October 2005 when program DASSP began, operations averaged about one flight per week. Today, activity averages about three to four flights per day, about 1000 a year. The requirements in the DASSP include: General aviation operators must adopt a security program, background checks on flight crews, identify a security coordinator, and train on security procedures All DASSP flights must carry an armed security officer (ASO) on board (very few such accredited officers are available.) Flights must depart from one of 27 TSA approved DASSP gateway airports. Full departure screening of crew, passengers, baggage, and aircraft by TSA security inspectors Flights must request permission to operate in DCA no sooner than 72 hours in advance of the flight (due to DCA slot requirements) and no later than 24 hours in advance of the flight (for TSA security reviews) for each flight into DCA. These same screening procedures must be used for flights departing DCA Charges approximately $230 are assessed to cover TSA's screening costs plus $15/passenger for screening names against the No-Fly and Selectee lists Requirements for an Armed Security Officer and use of a gateway airport are predictably, and we think, deliberately impossible for most operators to meet. TSA has approximately 200 registered operators in the DASSP, making the wait for an ASO intolerable. However, the Department of Homeland Security has determined ``that general aviation presents only limited and mostly hypothetical threats to security . . . (and) that the steps general aviation airport owners and managers have taken to enhance security are positive and effective.'' DHS goes further in its report on general aviation: ``The current status of [general aviation] operations does not present a serious homeland security vulnerability requiring TSA to increase regulatory oversight of the industry.'' ``Although [TSA's Office of Intelligence] has identified potential threats, it has concluded that most [general aviation] aircraft are too light to inflict significant damage, and has not identified specific imminent threats from general aviation'' Nevertheless, the nation's capital has been singled out as the only jurisdiction under particularly onerous, unnecessary and wasteful program restrictions. As the initial approach of TSA to general aviation in general showed, however, the entire general aviation sector was about to be buried by the Large Aircraft Security Program, until our committee said ``NO!'' The thoughtless creep mission of the TSA into General Aviation, and the total failure to weigh actual security risks against the implications of draconian security measures, was stopped by our Committee on Homeland Security. The District of Columbia general aviation community deserves the same respect and attention. General aviation at DCA is not the only industry in the District of Columbia that has been wiped out by arbitrary and restrictive airspace regulations. The South Capitol Street Heliport is a commercial heliport that once served east coast cities such as New York, Miami and Boston. It continues to serve the Metropolitan Police Air Support Unit and the U.S. Park Police. The Heliport is also the point of evacuation for the Supreme Court and part of the Department of Defense Nightingale program. In fact, on 9/11 this heliport actually became the Air Control Command Tower when DCA was evacuated. Moreover, having shown it was a vital asset, not a liability, for two years after 9/11, under an agreement with the Secret Service--an agreement that was later adopted by the TSA to develop its Civil Aviation Security Rules--the South Capitol Heliport continued to receive corporate commercial clients and news gathering helicopters. Yet, without explanation, beginning in October 2003, commercial operators have been altogether restricted from using the heliport, despite the fact that the heliport owners have been clear that they are willing to comply with any and all security demands. The nation's capital has all but lost helicopter service, even for the vital security purposes our heliport has performed. Without corporate commercial clients the South Capitol Heliport cannot generate enough revenue to survive. The owner has submitted the highest level security plans, but the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security have failed to respond. At my request, the Committee on Homeland Security has added heliports specifically to the list of entities on the general aviation working group. This heliport is vital for both security and commercial helicopter operations that the District of Columbia cannot afford to lose. While we pause to recognize the importance of general aviation to the U.S. economy, I use this occasion to remind my colleagues in the Congress and the Administration to recognize the importance of general aviation to the nation's capital.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 508 recognizes the contributions of general aviation and encourages general aviation activities. General aviation is a little recognized, major sector of the airline industry, which contributes $150 billion to United States direct and indirect economic output. I also want to mention the Transportation Security Administration Reauthorization Act of 2009, which included an important section setting up a general aviation working group within the Aviation Security Advisory Committee, to advise the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) on security issues in general aviation. This advisory group was established after the TSA began rulemaking on the Large Aircraft Security Program that threatened to swallow general aviation amidst burdensome and unnecessary regulations, suited for large commercial aircraft. Longstanding unattended issues and insufficient attention to the nation's important General Aviation sector are finally getting the attention they deserve. Along with other members of the House Committee on Homeland Security, I intend to see that General Aviation security issues are treated uniquely for the sector to administer. However, as most members who have sat in on any hearing with the FAA, TSA, DHS or any other security agency may now know, the District of Columbia's main airport, the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA), is uniquely hampered by impossibly restrictive regulations that have destroyed general aviation in the nation's capitol, and arbitrary practices may be spreading to others. In the Homeland Security Committee, we have taken the important first steps to give detailed attention to this major section of the airline industry to the new administration. After 9/11 the restrictions on General Aviation in the nation's capitol, in particular, became symbolic of arbitrary action against general aviation that could happen anywhere. Even though New York City was the epicenter of 9/11, the nation's capitol is the only location that suffers under unique restrictions that have crippled general aviation here. In fact, there was no general aviation for four years. After joining in my complaints at hearings, the former Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Don Young, threatened to subpoena any agency that did not comply with a bill that aimed to compel the resumption of general aviation flights at DCA and to hold them in contempt if they refused to appear before the committee to report on progress. As a result, a plan finally was put in place requirements but the DCA Access Standard Security Program (DASSP) was almost worse than no plan at all. Before 9/11, general aviation activity at DCA accounted for \1/3\ (approximately 30,000) of the total annual operations at DCA. In contrast, in October 2005 when program DASSP began, operations averaged about one flight per week. Today, activity averages about three to four flights per day, about 1,000 a year. The requirements in the DASSP include: General aviation operators must adopt a security program, background check flight crews, identify a security coordinator, and train on security procedures. All DASSP flights must carry an armed security officer (ASO) on board (very few such accredited officers are available). Flights must depart from one of 27 TSA approved DASSP gateway airports. Full departure screening of crew, passengers, baggage, and aircraft by TSA security inspectors. Flights must request permission to operate in DCA no sooner than 72 hours in advance of the flight (due to DCA slot requirements) and no later than 24 hours in advance of the flight (for TSA security reviews) for each flight into DCA. These same screening procedures must be used for flights departing DCA. Charges of approximately $230 are assessed to cover TSA's screening costs plus $15/passenger for screening names against the No-Fly and Selectee lists. Requirements for an Armed Security Officer and use of a gateway airport are predictably, and we think, deliberately impossible for most operators to meet. TSA has approximately 200 registered operators in the DASSP, making the wait for an ASO intolerable. However, the Department of Homeland Security has determined ``that general aviation presents only limited and mostly hypothetical threats to security . . . (and) that the steps general aviation airport owners and managers have taken to enhance security are positive and effective.'' DHS goes further in its report on general aviation: ``The current status of [general aviation] operations does not present a serious homeland security vulnerability requiring TSA to increase regulatory oversight of the industry.'' ``Although [TSA's Office of Intelligence] has identified potential threats, it has concluded that most [general aviation] aircraft are too light to inflict significant damage, and has not identified specific imminent threats from general aviation''. Nevertheless, the nation's capitol has been singled out as the only jurisdiction under particularly onerous, unnecessary and wasteful program restrictions. As the initial approach of TSA to general aviation in general showed, however, the entire general aviation sector was about to be buried by the Large Aircraft Security Program, until our committee said ``NO!'' The thoughtless creep mission of the TSA into General Aviation, and the total failure to weigh actual security risks against the implications of draconian security measures, was stopped by our Committee on Homeland Security. The District of Columbia general aviation community deserves the same respect and attention. General aviation at DCA is not the only industry in the District of Columbia that has been wiped out by arbitrary and restrictive airspace regulations. The South Capitol Street Heliport is a commercial heliport that once served east coast cities such as New York, Miami and Boston. It continues to serve the Metropolitan Police Air Support Unit and the U.S. Park Police. The heliport is also the point of evacuation for the Supreme Court and part of the Department of Defense Nightingale program. In fact, on 9/11 this heliport actually became the Air Control Command Tower when DCA was evacuated. Moreover, having shown it was a vital asset, not a liability, for two years after 9/11, under an agreement with the Secret Service--an agreement that was later adopted by the TSA to develop its Civil Aviation Security Rules--the South Capitol Heliport continued to receive corporate commercial clients and news gathering helicopters. Yet, without explanation, beginning in October 2003, commercial operators have been altogether restricted from using the heliport, despite the fact that the heliport owners have been clear that they are willing to comply with any and all security demands. The nation's capitol has all but lost helicopter service, even for the vital security purposes our heliport has performed. Without corporate commercial clients the South Capitol Heliport cannot generate enough revenue to survive. The owner has submitted the highest level security plans, but the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security have failed to respond. At my request, the Committee on Homeland Security has added heliports specifically to the list of entities on the general aviation working group. This heliport is vital for both security and commercial helicopter operations that the District of Columbia cannot afford to lose. While we pause to recognize the importance of general aviation to the U.S. economy, I use this occasion to remind my colleagues in the Congress and the Administration to recognize the importance of general aviation to the nation's capitol.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today I rise to introduce The Fair Housing Commemoration Act of 2009 to commemorate The Fair Housing Act (FHA), enacted in April 1968, the last of the three great civil rights acts of the 1960's, with a monument in the Nation's Capitol. The Fair Housing Commemorative Foundation is raising funds and is working with the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission (NCMAC) to adhere to the requirements and process established by the Commemorative Works Act of 1986. This may be the first time that a sector of our economy has decided to raise a monument commemorating a statute that regulates some of its practices. The Foundation's precedent is commendable. Fair housing and the movement to bring equal opportunity in the real estate markets are intertwined with our nation's history. The federal government has both been a part of the problem and an integral part of its solution. Every branch of the federal government has played a key role in our national progress towards fair housing. It is fitting that we commemorate not only the passage of the Fair Housing Act, but also the history of our nation's path towards equal opportunity in housing. The Nation's beginning The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution establishes a right to own private property that the government cannot take without just compensation. Early immigrants sought a place where they could own and transfer real estate without the arbitrary interference of the government. That right was not universal. Slavery denied basic rights to a whole class of Americans based on race, and reduced some of our people to the subhuman status of property. Among the effects of slavery was the denial of the right to own and use real property. Post Civil War The Civil War and the constitutional amendments ending slavery were accompanied by laws that gave all citizens the same rights as white citizens to own and use real property. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was our nation's first ``fair housing'' law. Subsequent years saw that law ignored and severely limited by court decisions, culminating with the philosophy of ``separate but equal'' in the Plessey v Ferguson case. In addition, Congress and some states passed laws that restricted access to private property ownership and use by Latinos and Asian Americans. In the early 20th century, social scientists and leaders within the real estate community established guides for neighborhood desirability based on racial composition. Homogeneous communities for white, northern European background residents were seen as best investment for homeowners and others. Some early zoning laws sought to limit, by race, people who could live in certain communities, as did some practices of the real estate sector. Although the Supreme Court, in its 1917 decision in Buchanan v. Worley, struck down these racial restrictions, these racial biases were incorporated into FHA rules and formed the basis for many private agreements to segregate and form racially restrictive covenants.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 661, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Stated against:

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I was unable to vote on rollcall Nos. 641 and 642. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall 641 and ``no'' on 642. Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Pence

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce, for myself and for Congressman Jose Serrano, the Major General David F. Wherley, Jr. District of Columbia National Guard Retention and College Access Act. I introduce this bill a month after the heartbreaking collision of two Red Line Metro trains here in the District of Columbia that took the lives of nine area residents, seven from the District, including a local hero, Major General David F. Wherley, Jr. I introduced the District of Columbia National Guard Retention and College Access Act in May of this year, but after the Metro tragedy I said at the Wherleys' memorial service that I would rename this bill in honor of General Wherley, who not only fought for his country, but also never forgot the men and women who served under him at home or at war. Thereafter, Congressman Jose Serrano, chair of the Appropriations Financial Services subcommittee, was good enough to offer this renaming in his appropriations bill and to appropriate the funds without authorization this year and in prior years. Under General Wherley's command, the D.C. National Guard deployed several of its units in the Global War on Terrorism. General Wherley himself served courageously in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but at home he spent hours with me figuring out ways to get funds not only for his soldiers, but also for programs for the District's children. He was always successful because he would show up, not only in my office, but wherever he was needed to get funds or to do service. General Wherley was a full-service leader. He not only commanded the D.C. National Guard; he worked closely with me and with city officials on programs for our city, its disadvantaged youth, and on keeping our Guard competitive as a premier force at home as well as abroad. He became one of us when he and his wife, Anne, decided to purchase a co- op in Southeast, D.C., here on Capitol Hill. Anne, who sadly also was killed in the train collision, was his high school sweetheart. At their joint memorial service, I only half-jokingly said that she did everything with him but run the D.C. Guard. As I highlighted when I originally introduced this bill earlier this session, the education incentive in my bill serves not only to encourage high quality recruits, but has had the important benefit of helping the D.C. National Guard to maintain the force necessary to protect the federal presence because this funding helps equalize an important benefit compared with what is offered by Guards in surrounding jurisdictions. A strong D.C. National Guard able to attract the best soldiers is especially important, given the dual mission of the D.C. National Guard to protect hometown D.C. as well as the federal presence. This unique responsibility distinguishes the D.C. National Guard from any other National Guard. While the appropriators treat funding for the D.C. National Guard as a programmatic request, under past administrations the Office of Management and Budget has contended that these funds are earmarks, putting them in jeopardy of consistent funding. It therefore is imperative that this important educational incentive be authorized to ensure its permanent sustainability. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, on rollcall Nos. 555 and 556, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman, the ranking member and the committee for bringing this bill forward, especially Chairman Serrano for consistently showing respect for our citizenship as American citizens by not interfering with local governance and trying to keep others from doing so. Mr. Chairman, it's very painful for a Member to have to come to the Congress to ask that you vote for her local budget. It's particularly painful when that Member doesn't even have a vote herself on her own local budget. Yet some Members are quick to step up with amendments of their own on a budget they had nothing to do with raising, as if District of Columbia were just another Federal appropriation. One Member, I regret to say, came forward with some misinformation which the Rules Committee and I had to correct this morning that somehow we wanted Federal funds to be used for abortion. Nonsense. We have never asked for Federal funds for abortion services in the District of Columbia, only for use of local funds. We have never asked for anything except equality with other jurisdictions and other American citizens. All residents ask is that you respect the Home Rule Act. Congress had no intention that our local budget would be treated any differently. These are our funds, local funds, not Federal funds. It is very difficult for Congress, and Congress does not, in fact, change the local budget because Congress doesn't know anything about it. The presence of the D.C. budget here becomes a basis for a small minority to use us for their own purposes, to try to impose on us their own choices. You can't endorse local control as a founding principle for everybody except the residents of your Nation's Capital. The Founders never made exceptions. I ask you to vote for this appropriation and in doing so, to remember, we demand not to be relegated to second-class citizenship because of our treatment in this process and on this floor. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for all you have done for this appropriation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for his generosity. This is a local budget. Make no mistake about it: no amendment is in order on anybody's local budget. The time for lip service for local control has run out. We have profound disagreements on some issues from abortion to vouchers. Go home and deal with them there. Allow us to deal with these issues in our own way as a local jurisdiction. I appreciate that the Rules Committee has indeed respected our citizenship. And I demand that other Members of Congress do so, as well.

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for making a clarification before I could. Let me tell you something about fungible funds. You go home and tell the folks in your county or in your city that the funds that come from the Federal Government are fungible with their local funds, and therefore Congress should have jurisdiction over what they do in your local jurisdiction, and they may put you out of the House. The fact is that the committee was at pains to respect the difference between local and Federal issues, and I very much appreciate that they did. I'm surprised that Mr. Stupak would come to the floor with misinformation without looking at the bill to work up people on a controversial issue. The District asks, only be left abortion in our control insomuch as it is left in the control of other Americans. And throughout the United States, pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, local jurisdictions may use local funds for abortions for poor women. We are American citizens, and we demand to be treated as American citizens. We are older American citizens than some of you because we were created as a city with the Nation itself more than 200 years ago. I appreciate that our Rules Committee appreciated our citizenship and responded to and respected it. Now for those who are new, they might say, well, why is the D.C. appropriations in the Financial Services bill? The proper question is, why is Congress having anything to do with the D.C. budget, a local budget? It is none of your affair. And it is an anomaly that we are going to cure soon. But the fact is that it is here under the Home Rule Act, which made the District of Columbia a self-governing jurisdiction. It is in the Financial Services bill because there is no place to put it. There is no place to put it because it doesn't belong in a Federal budget because it is not the money of the people of the United States. These are the funds of the people who live in the District of Columbia. Some Members may mistakenly, others deliberately, come to the floor to try to impose their will or their choices or the choices of their citizens on the citizens of another jurisdiction. They wouldn't stand for that for one second in their own jurisdictions, whether on abortion or on any other issue. We saw the deadly effects that can occur, and I appreciate that Mr. Serrano removed from the D.C. appropriations an attachment that was responsible for the death and for the terrible health of thousands of D.C. residents when we were barred from using a needle exchange program that thousands of jurisdictions are able to do. We are not going to stand for it. It is not your business to deal with the health of my citizens or to keep us from doing what is required and legal to keep them healthy. Local control is older than the Nation itself. The war slogan ``no taxation without representation'' meant today, as it means in the District when you see it on the license plates, ``Take your hands off of the local jurisdiction that is not your own.'' This is the D.C. budget before you. It contains funds raised here and nowhere else.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 469, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers so I am prepared to reserve.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and regional Member, Mr. Connolly of Virginia.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. On behalf of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I am pleased to present H. Res. 469 for consideration, honoring the exceptional life of Wayman Lawrence Tisdale and expressing sincere condolences on his passing. H. Res. 469 was introduced by our colleague, Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, on May 21, 2009, and reported out of the Oversight Committee by unanimous consent on June 18, 2009. Additionally, this resolution enjoys the bipartisan support of over 50 Members of Congress. Born in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 9, 1964, Wayman Tisdale grew up in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where he developed his dual affections for the sport of basketball and what Wayman considered his first love, music. Notably, while Wayman was considered one of the most heavily recruited high school basketball players in the Nation, he always continued to play bass guitar during morning services at his father's Tulsa church. Wayman subsequently accepted a basketball scholarship from the University of Oklahoma where he was a three-time All-American from 1983 to 1985, including his freshman year, marking the first time that a freshman has been named as a first-team All-American since freshmen were allowed to play again in the 1971-1972 season. During his collegiate career with the University of Oklahoma Sooners, Wayman was also honored as Big Eight Conference player of the year for three consecutive seasons and still holds Oklahoma's career record with 2,661 points and career rebounding record with 1,048 rebounds. In addition, he remained devoted to music, as he continued to play bass guitar at Sunday services in Tulsa and even played in the Oklahoma Sooners band. In honor of his remarkable achievements as a Sooner, in 1997 Wayman became the first player in any sport to have his jersey number, number 23, retired by the University of Oklahoma and in April of 2009 was inducted into the National Collegiate Basketball Hall of Fame. Prior to his selection as a second overall pick in the 1995 NBA draft by the Indiana Pacers, Wayman honorably represented his country as a member of the 1984 U.S. Olympic basketball team which won the gold medal in Los Angeles. He then embarked on an impressive 12-season professional basketball career as a power forward and center with the Pacers, the Sacramento Kings and the Phoenix Suns. Upon his retirement from the NBA in 1997, Wayman continued to develop his musical talent and subsequently became an award-winning contemporary jazz musician. Wayman had launched his professional music career with the 1995 release of his jazz album, Power Forward, which reached number four on Billboard's Contemporary Jazz Albums chart. He subsequently released seven additional jazz albums, all of which reached the Top Ten on Billboard's Contemporary Jazz Albums chart, including three albums that went to number one. In addition to his success on the basketball court and his influence on jazz music, Wayman will be equally remembered for his exceptional character, positivity and heart. As noted by his former Indiana Pacers teammate Reggie Miller, Wayman ``was the nicest man in the world with the biggest heart and an even bigger smile. I thank him for befriending me and for showing me there is more to life than just basketball.'' Regrettably, Wayman Lawrence Tisdale passed away on May 15, 2009, at the young age of 44. Mr. Speaker, let us honor this exceptional athlete, musician and man through the passage of H. Res. 469. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 469) honoring the life of Wayman Lawrence Tisdale and expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives on his passing.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, having no further speakers, again, let me urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 612. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer of Maryland, who has led the delegation on matters pertaining to WMATA, or the Metro, and especially this accident.

Ms. NORTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I introduced House Resolution 612 on July 7 with members of the National Capitol Region delegation as well as with others in the House. It is with a heavy heart that I call up for consideration House Resolution 612, which expresses the profound sympathies of the House of Representatives for the victims of the tragic Red Line Metrorail accident on June 22, 2009, and for their families and friends and associates, and also recognizes the dozens of people who were injured. I appreciate the work and courtesy of Chairman Ed Towns, of Ranking Member Darrell Issa, of Chairman Stephen Lynch, and of Ranking Member Jason Chaffetz for their efforts in bringing forward this resolution and for seeing to it that the resolution was marked up at the earliest markup meeting of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Let us begin, Mr. Speaker, by allowing each of us to take a moment on the floor of the House today to remember the nine people who were lost as a result of this tragic accident. I ask for a moment of silence. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Seven of the nine were from the District of Columbia. One was from Maryland. Another was from Virginia. Mary ``Mandy'' Doolittle, of the District, served the American Nurses Association by spreading its work globally. Veronica DuBose, of the District, was a devoted mother of two who was on her way to a nursing class. Ana Fernandez, of Hyattsville, Maryland, was a mother of six who worked tirelessly, often holding more than one job to help provide for her family. Dennis Hawkins, of the District, was on his way to teach vacation Bible school at Bethesda Baptist Church. LaVonda ``Nikki'' King, of the District, was a young mother who looked forward to opening her own beauty salon that was already planned to occur. Cameron Williams, of the District, was headed to his nighttime maintenance job. Of the nine, I personally know only Major General David F. Wherley, recently retired as commander of the D.C. National Guard, and his wife, Ann. General Wherley was a fighter pilot and commander of the 113th Fighter Wing at Andrews Air Force Base who rose to head the D.C. National Guard itself. The general was especially devoted to his troops and to the children of the city, initiating programs for both. Ann Wherley, herself a professional, was a major force in the general's life and in his work. I thank the Appropriations Committee for honoring my request to have a D.C. tuition assistance bill named for the general, who was the first to bring this concern to me for introduction, and I will soon seek a proper authorization in a pending bill. Jeanice McMillan, finally, was the operator of train 112. All the available evidence showed that Ms. McMillan did everything within her power to avert the accident. Ms. McMillan worked herself up the Metro workplace ladder to realize her goal of sending her only son to college. Mr. Speaker, the loss of precious lives that resulted from the June 22 accident touched their families uniquely and tragically. However, I also ask the House to remember these families who share the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority system with several hundred thousand Federal employees and with our own House and Senate congressional staff. Today let us also share with those who lost their lives as well as with those who were injured our thoughts, prayers and our deep determination to do all that we can to assure improved safety for all. I urge adoption of House Resolution 612. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 612) expressing the profound sympathies of the House of Representatives for the victims of the tragic Metrorail accident on Monday, June 22, 2009, and for their families, friends, and associates.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, on rollcall Nos. 467, 468 and 469 during the consideration of H.R. 2996, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Part C Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Campbell

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today I introduce a bill to allow treatment using Medicaid funds for men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer. This bill mirrors the measure that Congress enacted in 1999 to help low-income women who would otherwise not qualify for Medicaid, despite being diagnosed with breast cancer or cervical cancer. Congress found that women responded in large numbers to efforts by government and others to encourage early diagnosis using mammography after the Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act was enacted in 1990. However, in 1999 Congress recognized that, because the screening did not provide coverage of treatment for women above the poverty level, the screening legislation had the tragic but unintended consequence of informing these women of a serious disease that demanded immediate treatment but leaving them without the means to seek that treatment. Later, Congress amended Title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide medical assistance for the women screened and found to have breast or cervical cancer under a federally funded screening program. In today's bill, I have endeavored to provide the same relief for men. This bill allows men, earning up to 250% of the poverty level, who are diagnosed with prostate cancer through a federal screening program for prostate cancer, to qualify for treatment using Medicaid funds. The program would target men who are low-income, uninsured or underinsured who, nevertheless, do not qualify for Medicaid. Prostate cancer outranks breast cancer as the second most common occurring cancer in the U.S. and the second leading cause of cancer- related deaths. However, diagnosing this cancer is often less expensive, and unlike breast cancer, often does not require immediate treatment. Prostate cancer treatment does not require invasive surgery in many instances. Many prostate cases can be diagnosed with a simple Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) test unlike the more costly high technology mammography machines used to detect breast cancer. Many men are advised to wait and watch for the development of the disease before seeking treatment. However the rate of cancer deaths coupled with available treatment is strong evidence that many lives could be saved at considerably less expense if early detection and treatment were more available. Although race is a factor, every man over the age of 50 is at risk of developing prostate cancer and should be screened. Veterans that have been exposed to Agent Orange also have a higher risk of developing prostate cancer. Many doctors recommend yearly screening for men over age 50, and some advise men who are at a higher risk for prostate cancer to begin screening at age 40 or 45. Many Black men are at the highest risk of prostate cancer--it tends to start at younger ages and grows faster than in men of other races. Currently, Medicare provides coverage for an annual PSA test for all men age 50 and older, but many still do not fall within existing requirements to receive Medicaid. This bill is especially necessary in today's tough economic climate where more and more men are becoming unemployed and falling below the poverty line. We cannot expect them to get screened for a disease that they cannot afford to treat. We must act on the lesson we learned from the 1999 passage of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act and fund treatment for this cancer. I urge my colleagues to join me in establishing this program guaranteeing treatment for men diagnosed with prostate cancer. It will meet an immediate and pressing need in communities across the country, and across racial and class lines. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.