Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise to ask the House to join me in congratulating the first graduating class of the Rivers Correctional Institution Residential Drug Abuse Program for meeting the high standards required for graduation. I am delighted at your success. I targeted the admission of District of Columbia residents to the drug treatment program as the highest priority at our first hearing since DC residents were transferred to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities. The reason drug treatment has been the priority issue is because drug abuse is a core reason many residents go to prison in the first place, and drug abuse is a primary reason why many return to prison. As today's graduates know, many BOP inmates who need the drug treatment you have received cannot be accommodated under the BOP's existing appropriations. You have been fortunate to be accepted into the program, and you have shown yourselves to be worthy of admission by being the first DC residents to graduate from Rivers' new program. Because you have benefitted while many others could not, our expectations of you are great. In return for being among the few who have been admitted to the program, we ask you to remain drug free and to resolve to never see the inside of a prison again. You can do it now. We know, of course, that you will come home at a time when people without felony records are being laid off and when we in the Congress are still working to find a solution to today's unprecedented economic crisis. Finding work and staying clean may be harder when you come home than when you left. But as pioneers and achievers, I believe in you, and I believe that you will set the example for others who need the program by fighting with determination to surmount any obstacles you may find. Your own families and close friends are perhaps the only people who, I believe, will be more pleased than I will be to see you when you return. I hope that each of you will stop by my office here in the Rayburn House Office Building at some point to receive my personal congratulations and to have your picture taken with me, especially since, regrettably, I cannot be present in person to see you graduate. Please know that I am proud of the important achievement which you mark with today's graduation ceremony. It is one of the most important milestones of your life so far. Your graduation from the program is so important to me and to the District of Columbia that I will commemorate today's ceremony and your graduation by placing these congratulatory remarks in the Congressional Record when Congress returns from its week-long recess that began last Friday.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise to ask the House to join me in commemorating yet another honor for Edward Kennedy Duke Ellington, born 1899, in the District of Columbia, who has left us musical gifts that are so timeless they have proved perpetually modern. The new honor for Duke Ellington that we celebrate is his likeness at his piano that appears on the new District of Columbia circulating quarter formally introduced today and placed in a map with other coins that represent our union. Duke Ellington is only the second African American to appear on a circulating coin. For the residents of the District of Columbia, this honor for Duke Ellington is special indeed. His values, his study of music, and his musical genius were shaped from the beginning of his life in the Shaw community and in the D.C. public schools until, as a grown man, he pursued his star-studded musical career and became one of the worlds's most celebrated band leaders and composers. D.C. residents themselves selected Duke Ellington, and many witnessed him help establish the entertainment corridor on U Street as a major venue for African- American entertainers when the District of Columbia was a segregated city that did not permit Black people to attend or to perform elsewhere in the nation's capital. Ellington was my personal favorite for the D.C. quarter not only because he was a native son, but also because for many years, we in the city have been trying to correct the notion that D.C. is only a ``government town,'' making it clear that we have been a hometown since 1801. The District has become a city with some of the best theater, entertainment and sports in the country, and now features an annual week-long Duke Ellington Jazz, Festival, fast becoming one of the best known in the country. The truth is that Ellington is as representative of his home town as George Washington is of official Washington. The Duke sends the message that hometown, homegrown residents are making and have always made important contributions to our country and to the world. To celebrate the Duke's coin, we kicked off Duke Ellington Week today with a celebration of D.C.'s new quarter at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History, where the African American Museum is temporarily housed and has mounted the Scurlock Exhibition of photographs of Black Washingtonians, including Ellington. The celebration featured a presentation of the quarter by U.S. Mint Director Edmund Moy, and the placement in the coin map. Ellington week activities will continue Wednesday, Feb. 25, at THEARC, with a ``Celebration of Black History Month, the Arts, and the Duke Ellington Commemorative Quarter,'' featuring Edward and April Ellington, Duke Ellington's son and daughter, the Ellington School of the Arts School jazz band, and the Washington Ballet, and later on Wednesday, a concert, ``Sophisticated Lady: An Evening with Denyce Graves,'' at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts to raise funds for the Duke Ellington School of the Arts, the famous soprano's alma mater. During a lifetime of recognition of his unique musical genius, Ellington received 13 Grammys over 40 years, the Pied Piper award from the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers in 1968, and honorary doctoral degrees from 16 institutions. He received the nation's highest honors, including the President's Gold Medal in 1966, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1969, the highest honor a civilian can receive in the United States. After his death on May 24, 1974, Western High School in Washington, D.C. was renamed the Duke Ellington High School for the Performing Arts. The school is one of the most renowned in the nation for its excellence in all the arts. Jazz, America's singular indigenous art form, owes its greatness to a handful of men and women, none more so than Duke Ellington, the Renaissance man of music--composer, musician, band leader, the full package. Today, we add a crowning honor with the city's own circulating quarter bearing the Duke's image. Now our native son, a musical genius already honored the world over for his artistic achievements, will have a lasting image on his nation's currency to remind the world that his hometown, the District of Columbia, nurtured the musical genius of Edward Kennedy Duke Ellington.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, on February 3, 2009, I intended to introduce my budget autonomy bill. I submitted the following introductory statement for the Record on that day. It appears that the wrong bill was attached inadvertently. Today, I correct that mistake by introducing the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act of 2009. As we approach a vote on the D.C. House Voting Rights Act of 2009, it is not too early in the session to begin the next steps necessary to make the residents of the District of Columbia genuinely free and equal citizens. Other than to voting rights, the highest priority for District of Columbia residents in the 111th Congress is their right to control the funds they themselves raise to support their city. Budget control is essential to the right to self-government. Therefore, today, I am introducing the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act of 2009 to give the District the right to enact its local budget without annual congressional oversight. As a practical matter, permitting the city's budget to become law without coming to Congress would have multiple and immediate benefits for both the city and Congress. For the city, a timely budget means: eliminating the uncertainty of the congressional process that has a negative effect of the city's bond rating, which adds unnecessary interest costs for local taxpayers to pick up; significantly increasing the District's ability to make accurate revenue forecasts; and reducing the countless operational problems, large and small, that result because the city's budget cannot be implemented when enacted by the city. Of the many problems that would be eliminated, none is more important than aligning the school year with the typical state government July 1st fiscal year, instead of the congressional fiscal year, which starts in October, after the school year has begun. Leaving the local enactment to the District would bring benefits to Congress as well. The D.C. budget often has had to come to the floor repeatedly before it passes because of controversial attachments, often of interest only to a few members who use the D.C. appropriations to promote their pet ideological issues. Members then complain about the time and effort spent on the smallest appropriations that affect no other members. No budget autonomy bill can eliminate the possibility of riders because there are countless ways to attach riders, but our bill reduces the likelihood that unrelated riders will hold the city's local budget hostage and sometimes the appropriations process itself. I am gratified that Congress itself has moved toward the position embodied in this bill. Congressional experience with the District's budget has matured, and neither party has made changes in recent years. At the same time, increasing recognition of the hardship and delays that the annual appropriations process causes has led Congress to begin freeing the city from the congressional appropriations network. In 2006, Congress approved the Mid-year Budget Autonomy bill, offering the first freedom from the federal appropriations process, the most important structural change for the city since passage of the Home Rule Act 36 years ago. As a result, the District can now spend its local funds all year without congressional approval instead of having to return mid-year to become a part of the federal supplemental appropriation in order to spend funds collected since the annual appropriations bill. Moreover, during the past few years, appropriators have responded to our concern about the hardships resulting from delays in enacting the D.C. appropriation. I appreciate our agreement that has allowed the local D.C. budget to be in the first continuing resolution, permitting the city, uniquely, to spend its local funds at the next year's level, even though the budgets for federal agencies are often delayed for months. This approach has ended the lengthy delay of the budget of a big city until an omnibus appropriations bill is filed, often months after October 1st. There is no risk to the Congress passing the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act. By definition, Congress will retain jurisdiction over the District of Columbia under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution because the District is not a state. Since, therefore, Congress could in any case make changes in the District's budget and laws at will, it is unnecessary to require a lengthy repetition of the District's budget process here. The redundancy of the congressional appropriations process is its most striking feature, considering that few if any changes in the budget itself are made. The original Senate version of the Home Rule Act provided for budget autonomy, and 210 years of redundant processing of a local budget and delays occasioned by the extra layer of oversight offer conclusive evidence that the time is overdue to permit the city to enact its local budget, the single most important step the Congress could take to help the District manage the city. Members of Congress were sent here to do the business of the Nation. They have no reason to be interested in or to become knowledgeable about the many complicated provisions of the local budget of a single city. In good times and in bad, the House and Senate pass the District's budget as is. Our bill takes the Congress in the direction it is moving already based on its own experience. Congressional interference into one of the vital rights to self-government should end this year with enactment of the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, last week, I introduced the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act. Today, I am introducing its fraternal twin, the District of Columbia Legislative Autonomy Act of 2009, to end discriminatory and unnecessary congressional review of District of Columbia legislation. I introduce these bills in sequence because Congress makes a mockery of self-government when it denies the citizens of the nation's capital the right to enact a local budget, as well as civil and criminal laws, free from interference. In 2007, this bill was passed by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the Budget Autonomy bill was cleared by the subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service and District of Columbia that year as well. However, I decided to delay taking these bills to the floor because of threatened debilitating amendments and possible difficulties getting President Bush to sign these bills. The legislative autonomy bill would eliminate the 30 day and 60 day congressional review period for civil and criminal bills, respectively. Because the period of Congressional review involves only days when Congress is in session, not ordinary calendar days, bills signed by the mayor laws typically do not become law for months. A required hold on all D.C. bills forces the D.C. City Council to pass most legislation using a cumbersome and complicated process in which bills are passed concurrently on an emergency, temporary, and permanent basis to ensure that the operations of this large and rapidly changing city continue uninterrupted. Because of the complications and timeframes involved, some bills do not become law at all. The Legislative Autonomy Act would eliminate the need for the D.C. City Council to engage in this Byzantine process. The current law is an obsolete, demeaning, and cumbersome mechanism, which Congress no longer uses, and seldom used in the past. Yet, the D.C. City Council continues to be bound by Section 602 of the Home Rule Act, and therefore continues to abide by its awkward and debilitating rules. Our bill would do no more than align D.C. City Council and congressional practices. Instead of the cumbersome formal filing of disapproval resolutions that require processing in the House and the Senate, the Congress has preferred to use appropriations attachments. It is particularly unfair to require the D.C. City Council to engage in the tortuous process prescribed by the Home Rule Act that Congress itself has discarded. My bill would eliminate the formal review system that long ago died of old age and disuse. Congress has walked away from the layover review and should allow the city to do the same. Today's bill, of course, does not prevent review of District laws by Congress. Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the House and the Senate could scrutinize every piece of legislation passed by the D.C. City Council, if desired, and could change or strike such legislation under its plenary constitutional authority over the District. However, since the Home Rule Act became effective in 1974, of the more than 2,000 legislative acts that have been passed by the D.C. City Council and signed into law by the Mayor, only three resolutions to disapprove of a D.C. bill have been enacted, and two of these involved a distinct federal interest. Placing a hold on our 2,000 D.C. bills has not only proved unnecessary, but has meant untold wasted costs in terms of money, staff and time to the District and the Congress. Although 36 years of Home Rule Act history shows that congressional review is unnecessary, this bill merely eliminates the automatic hold placed on local legislation and the need for the D.C. City Council to use a phantom process passed for the convenience of Congress, but one that Congress has eliminated in all but law. Congress continually urges the District government to pursue efficiency and savings. It is time for Congress to do its part to promote greater efficiency, both here and in the District, by streamlining its own redundant and discarded review processes. Eliminating the hold on D.C. legislation would not only save scarce D.C. taxpayer revenue, but would benefit the city's bond rating, which is affected by the shadow of congressional review that delays the finality of District legislation. At the same time, Congress would not give up any of its plenary power because the Congress may intervene into any District matter at any time under the Constitution. The limited legislative autonomy granted in this bill would allow the District to realize the greater measure of meaningful self-government and Home Rule it deserves and has more than earned in the 36 years since the Home Rule Act became effective. I urge my colleagues to pass this important measure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I rise today to applaud a particular section of the stimulus package that will have a profound impact on the citizens of the District of Columbia. The hundreds of millions of dollars in AIDS/HIV testing and prevention contained in the legislation before us will assist an amazing organization in the District called the Whitman Walker Clinic. When it is time to award these funds, I strongly urge the Secretary of HHS and the Director of the CDC to look favorably upon the Clinic's application. The District of Columbia is facing an HIV/AIDS epidemic of untold proportions. It is estimated that 1 in 20 citizens of the District now have HIV or AIDS. This is one of the highest incidences in the Country if not the highest compared to other major metropolitan areas. The Whitman-Walker Clinic (WWC), a comprehensive primary care clinic with centers of excellence in HIV/AIDS care and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) health care, has been providing healthcare and supportive services to residents of the District of Columbia for 30 years. WWC is one of the largest nongovernmental HIV/AIDS medical and service organizations in the metropolitan Washington area. The Clinic provides a full spectrum of medical and support services to patients residing in the District of Columbia metropolitan area through its two District of Columbia sites: Elizabeth Taylor Medical Center (ETMC) and Max Robinson Center (MRC). The overall aim of WWC HIV/AIDS services is to improve health outcomes of persons living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) by providing clients with comprehensive and coordinated primary medical care; dental care; HIV/AIDS specialty care; medical adherence case management; mental health and addictions counseling and treatment; HIV education, prevention, and testing; support groups; nutrition counseling; legal services; and day treatment programs. The Clinic offers a comprehensive continuum of HIV/AIDS-related medical, behavioral health, and social services through our ``one-stop-shop'' approach to service delivery where all client services are available and integrated at a single location at each of our sites. The WWC ``one-stop shop'' approach combined with a newly implemented Electronic Health Record (EHR) enhances and ensures coordinated treatment, continuity of care, confidentiality, and elimination of duplication of effort and/or services. The co-location also allows better and more efficient access to services for clients. Among the many recent accomplishments of the Clinic are the four key new services which advance care for HIV patients: (1) the addition of an electronic health record (EHR) system; (2) the establishment of the Medical Adherence Case Management Department; (3) implementing the Public Benefits Department; (4) and implementing a new visit type: the ``Rapid HIV'' visit. (1). The Electronic Health Record: WWC implemented an electronic health record system, ``eClinicalWorks,'' in order to achieve significant clinical and operational efficiencies that are needed to support a high quality client/physician encounter. WWC EHR allows for a complete multidisciplinary approach to health care. All clients of WWC are established in our electronic health record (EHR) system in order to track progress in an organized and efficient manner. This allows physicians, mental health practitioners, nurse case managers, and other providers to coordinate the care of that client, exchange information, and communicate with each other in an efficient and trackable manner. When we receive information from an outside health service, that information is scanned into the patient's Clinic-based EHR. Similarly, when we send out information to an external provider, a note is made in the EHR as to the nature of the communication. (2). Medical Adherence Case Management Department: The Medical Adherence unit consists of Medical Adherence Case Managers and Medical Adherence Care Coordinators. The Medical Adherence Case Managers, all of whom are RNs, provide the following: barriers to care assessment, care planning, disease process education, medication/treatment management support, 24-hour support via pager and pillbox initiation. The Medical Adherence Care Coordinators provide support by addressing clients who no-show as well as: prescription refill reports and followup, home visits, accompaniment to medical appointments, social services as they relate to barriers to care (like emergency financial assistance clinics, housing clinics, access to food and transportation) and other elements as they relate to life skills for managing a healthy lifestyle. This unit provides an immediate point of care for our new clients, establishing the relationship from the minute they walk in the door, or receive an HIV positive test result. WWC recognizes that for many of our clients, access to food and transportation can be a huge barrier to maintaining their medical care. Each staff person in Medical Adherence will be trained in accessing resources available to assist clients in these areas. The Medical Adherence Department also employs two full-time referral coordinators who assist patients in securing specialty and subspecialty appointments. For HIV-positive patients, the Medical Adherence staff members, in conjunction with our physician providers, pay close attention to identifying those patients at risk of failing their treatment regimens. (3). Public Benefits Department: As of October 1, 2008, all WWC clients receive eligibility screening for public and private insurance through our recently established Public Benefits department. This screening and support service ensures that clients are able to identify and apply for public insurance programs for which they qualify. By thoroughly assisting clients in securing insurance, it also ensures that Ryan White funds remain the payor of last resort. Public Benefits Coordinators meet with all new HIV clients soon after they test positive at the Clinic or seek care at the Clinic as a new patient with previously diagnosed HIV. Potential patients will be asked to bring in proof of residency and income. Public Benefits Coordinators then assist potential patients in determining for what insurance programs they are eligible and provide assistance in applying for benefits. Public Benefits Coordinators, most of whom are bilingual (English/Spanish), work closely with medical providers and the Medical Adherence Case Management department to help clients overcome barriers such as a medication they cannot afford, lack of insurance, denial of a service by their public insurance, all to ensure easy access to the services that they need. They guide clients through every step of the process necessary to eliminating barriers to care related to payor source. Most of the D.C. patients seen by WWC are ultimately deemed eligible for payor programs such as Medicaid and DC Alliance. (4). The ``Rapid HIV Visit'': The development of a ``Rapid HIV'' appointment type has allowed the Clinic to retain new HIV clients in care. Through this system, all new HIV clients are seen by the Medical Adherence Nurse Case Management team as well as by their primary medical provider on the same day they test positive in one of our facilities or seek care at WWC for their previously diagnosed HIV. Medical Adherence Nurse Case Managers triage all new HIV clients and initiate their care at WWC. WWC reserves several ``Rapid HIV'' visits with providers for new HIV clients each day. Therefore, new HIV patients are almost always able to meet with a provider the same day they test positive or present to the Clinic as a new HIV patient. Medical Adherence Case Managers provide post-testing counseling and ``HIV 101'' education to help patients understand their new diagnosis and navigate their treatment options. For new patients, providers take a full history, screen for mental health and/or substance abuse issues, order HIV and other labs, and assess immunization and tuberculosis status. Patients will also be given the opportunity to meet with the Public Benefits Coordinators on that same day as well. The Clinic offers expanded hours to accommodate clients who need services outside of the traditional work day. ETMC hours are Monday through Thursday from 8 am to 8 pm and Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. MRC hours are Monday and Tuesday from 8 am to 8 pm and Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. In addition to extended site hours, the Clinic provides an afterhours on-call nursing line pager with physician back-up for medical clients who may be experiencing a non-emergency problem or need medical advice. WWC clinics are well situated, geographically, to provide services to underserved communities, including Blacks, recent immigrants, Latino/ as, and men who have sex with men (MSM). Services at both sites are fully handicapped accessible and conveniently located on the Metro and bus lines. ETMC is located in Ward 2 near the U-street corridor, serves an area of the city concentrated with Latinos, African Americans, MSM, and where a significant number of people live below the poverty line. MRC is located in Ward 8, serves residents of Wards 6, 7, and 8, and residents east of the Anacostia River. Located in one of the city's poorest neighborhoods, MRC is well positioned to outreach and serve residents in Southeast, D.C., which is the area currently hardest hit by the AIDS epidemic. WWC's MRC location facilitates access to difficult to reach populations, such as IDUs, women with children, and sex workers. The funding that is made available in this legislation will help give the necessary tools to the staff and volunteers of the Whitman-Walker Clinic. I am told that the Clinic has major renovation and infrastructure needs as well. Funding awarded by the Secretary of HHS and the Director of the CDC will go a long way to help identify and treat HIV/AIDs in the Nation's capital. Again, I am thankful that this money is contained in this package and I respectfully urge a favorable ruling on the Whitman-Walker's application for funding.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, in my earlier remarks on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, I highlighted the first-rate work of AFSCME Council 26, affiliated with the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO, in a sex discrimination lawsuit brought by female custodians against the Architect of the Capitol, which is another way of saying the Congress of the United States of America. The women custodians were being paid one dollar less than their male co-workers. I referred to the female custodians' lawsuit in my remarks because without AFSCME's representation, this discrimination right here in Congress might never have been uncovered, just as Lilly Ledbetter did not discover the equal pay violations until after she retired. The women's Equal Pay Act lawsuit was historic as well because it was the first class-action under the Congressional Accountability Act that holds Congress to the same employment laws as our constituents. The class was expertly represented by lawyers Barbara Kraft and Sarah Starrett. By getting the women class certified, AFSCME and its lawyers were able to exert maximum leverage and, therefore, negotiate a just settlement with the Architect of the Capitol. The case underscores the importance of undoing the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision and restoring the long-standing interpretation of the Equal Pay Act. The Congress, the body representing the people, had been systematically and shamefully discriminating against its own workers. I had been a strong supporter of these women since they first filed their lawsuit. As a former chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, who had responsibility for enforcing the Equal Pay Act, I felt at the time that it was my obligation to bring the female custodians' case to the attention of other Members, and I spoke on the floor about the case in March 2000. I joined AFSCME and the women at a press conference on Equal Pay Day on May 10, 2000, to push for equal pay for these women as well as all other women in the workforce. After the women settled with the government, I was delighted when I was invited to help hand-deliver their settlement checks. The Ledbetter decision undermined the ability of unions like AFSCME to uncover and protect workers from discrimination, and I was proud to cite the work of AFSCME, Barbara Kraft, Sarah Starrett and the women custodians of the U.S. Congress as the best evidence of the need for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, As we approach a vote on the D.C. House Voting Rights Act of 2009, it is not too early in the session to begin the next steps necessary to make the residents of the District of Columbia genuinely free and equal citizens. Other than to voting rights, the highest priority for District of Columbia residents in the 111th Congress is their right to control the funds they themselves raise to support their city. Budget control is essential to the right to self-government. Therefore, today, I am introducing the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act of 2009 to give the District the right to enact its local budget without annual congressional oversight. As a practical matter, permitting the city's budget to become law without coming to Congress would have multiple and immediate benefits for both the city and Congress. For the city, a timely budget means: eliminating the uncertainty of the congressional process that has a negative effect of the city's bond rating, which adds unnecessary interest costs for local taxpayers to pick up; significantly increasing the District's ability to make accurate revenue forecasts; and reducing the countless operational problems, large and small, that result because the city's budget cannot be implemented when enacted by the city. Of the many problems that would be eliminated, none is more important than aligning the school year with the typical state government July 1st fiscal year, instead of the congressional fiscal year, which starts in October, after the school year has begun. Leaving the local enactment to the District would bring benefits to Congress as well. The D.C. budget often has had to come to the floor repeatedly before it passes because of controversial attachments, often of interest only to a few members who sue the D.C. appropriations to promote their pet ideological issues. Members then complain about the time and effort spent on the smallest appropriations that affect no other members. No budget autonomy bill can eliminate the possibility of riders because there are countless ways to attach riders, but our bill reduces the likelihood that unrelated riders will hold the city's local budget hostage and sometimes the appropriations process itself. I am gratified that Congress itself has moved toward the position embodied in this bill. Congressional experience with the District's budget has matured, and neither party has made changes in recent years. At the same time, increasing recognition of the hardship and delays that the annual appropriations process causes has led Congress to begin freeing the city from the congressional appropriations network. In 2006, Congress approved the Mid-year Budget Autonomy bill, offering the first freedom from the federal appropriations process, the most important structural change for the city since passage of the Home Rule Act 36 years ago. As a result, the District can now spend its local funds all year without congressional approval instead of having to return mid-year to become a part of the federal supplemental appropriation in order to spend funds collected since the annual appropriations bill. Moreover, during the past few years, appropriators have responded to our concern about the hardships resulting from delays in enacting the D.C. appropriation. I appreciate our agreement that has allowed the local D.C. budget to be in the first continuing resolution, permitting the city, uniquely, to spend its local funds at the next year's level, even though the budgets for federal agencies are often delayed for months. This approach has ended the lengthy delay of the budget of a big city until an omnibus appropriations bill is filed, often months after October 1st. There is no risk to the Congress passing the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act. By definition, Congress will retain jurisdiction over the District of Columbia under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution because the District is not a state. Since, therefore, Congress could in any case make changes in the District's budget and laws at will, it is unnecessary to require a lengthy repetition of the District's budget process here. The redundancy of the congressional appropriations process is its most striking feature, considering that few if any changes in the budget itself are made. The original Senate version of the Home Rule Act provided for budget autonomy, and 210 years of redundant processing of a local budget and delays occasioned by the extra layer of oversight offer conclusive evidence that the time is overdue to permit the city to enact its local budget, the single most important step the Congress could take to help the District improve managing the city. Members of Congress were sent here to do the business of the nation. They have no reason to be interested in or to become knowledgeable about the many complicated provisions of the local budget of a single city. In good times and in bad, the House and Senate pass the District's budget as is. Our bill takes the Congress in the direction it is moving already based on its own experience. Congressional interference into one of the vital rights to self-government should end this year with enactment of the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his very important and brilliant work on this bill. I thought I heard my friend talk about putting money in people's pockets. Have you forgotten that is exactly what we did with the last stimulus bill? And, guess what? It went to pay the Saudis, who are now enjoying that. People paid off their high gas bills, they paid down their credit cards. Understand that people are afraid to spend money. What does this bill do? This is not about ``the economy,'' it's not about ``the bailout.'' This bill is about jobs. What it says is if you give a person not money in his pocket, but a job, you have a better chance of reviving your economy. The GAO says, indeed, if done properly, a public infrastructure program will pay for itself, and more, over time, by increasing productivity. That is the reason we focus on infrastructure and it's interesting to know that many on the other side are pointing in that direction as well. I am not against some of the tax cuts, if properly done. But the reason we focus on infrastructure is that it alone has a track record of waking up other parts of the economy. That's what we want to do. This is about jobs. This is not about some generic economy. It is the multiplier effect that we are after. We are after jobs that then create support jobs on down the line. And there is no other expenditure that has been shown to do that as well as infrastructure. We've got a job to do to make sure, as the chairman says, that this gets done, and gets done quickly. But there can be no debate. Even as we heard testimony, investments in infrastructure have a broader effect and a bigger benefit on the economy than, for example, tax cuts, or any form of tax relief.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Kudos to Mr. Miller, who would not give up on this bill, for his early hearings and this early consideration now, and to the Speaker and to our leadership for this early floor time just when women need us most when the economy is indeed punishing them enough. I hold here a settlement agreement that is perhaps the best evidence of why we need this bill. The first case brought under the so-called Congressional Accountability Act, that was the act of about 10 or 15 years ago that said that the Congress had to abide by the same rules and rights as workers have in the private sector. This suit was brought by 300 current and former female custodians. All of them were African American women. They accused the House of Representatives and the Senate of paying them $1 less than men who had comparable jobs. After a long period of depositions and discovery, where a class was approved, the Congress paid $2.5 million to these women. Like Lilly Ledbetter, most of them had worked for many years as female custodians in the House and the Senate. Like Lilly Ledbetter, they had no idea they were being paid less than the men who did the same jobs, collecting our trash, if you will, in our offices. The way they found out and the only way they found out is that they were represented by a great union, the American Federation of Government Employees, who represented them in court and got the settlement. I remember going over to the Ford building and helping to hand out the checks. Many of the women, like Lilly Ledbetter, were near retirement. And this settlement agreement shows that those women, unlike Lilly Ledbetter, indeed received funds from the United States Congress under the Equal Pay Act. That is how the act was enforced when I chaired the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. That is how it was enforced before I chaired the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. And that is how we return it today. I would like to include this settlement agreement in the Record.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kindness in yielding. However Members voted before, there has been a light year of change since. The world has been turned on its axis by a worldwide recession, leaving virtually no one untouched. Most Americans supported this bill even in a good economy. Imagine today, mortgage delinquencies, job losses, wholesale economic misery. We simply can't say ``no'' today. America will help any child if he becomes sick enough. The only question is when. Prevent illness and catch it early, or wait until a child needs high cost hospital care. This bill covers only financially eligible children. Please vote for this rule.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise for the uniquely important occasion of honoring a man I am pleased to call a personal friend, but more important, a distinguished former member of the House of Representatives, and my predecessor, Walter E. Fauntroy, on the occasion of his 50th anniversary and simultaneous retirement as pastor from the New Bethel Baptist Church, one of the great churches in our Nation's capital. Many of you remember Rev. Fauntroy as your distinguished colleague. You already know that Walter has lived the lives of several men--a distinguished minister, a Member of this Congress, a civil rights leader, a scholar, a devoted husband and a father. Consequently, when America hears the name Walter Fauntroy, we think of more than one man, because he has done the work of several energetic men, often at the same time. It is difficult to find an American who has played so many important leadership roles and who has been so deeply a part of actually weaving a new fabric of equality and justice for our country. Rev. Fauntroy was sworn in as a Member of the House of Representatives, the District of Columbia's first delegate in the 20th century, on March 23, 1971. For 10 terms, he helped shape national policy, serving on important committees and subcommittees, including the House, Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs Committee, the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy, which he chaired for 6 years, and the Subcommittee on International Development, Finance, Trade, and Monetary Policy, which he chaired, for 4 years. As a Member, Congressman Fauntroy also chaired the Bipartisan/Bicameral Task Force on Haiti for 15 years. Before I was elected, I was pleased to join Congressman Fauntroy and two others at a sit-in at the South African Embassy to launch the ``Free South Africa'' movement, which ultimately led to the end of apartheid. Congressman Fauntroy is very fondly remembered here as a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus and was its chair from 1981 to 1983. Before the District of Columbia achieved home rule, President Lydon B. Johnson appointed Rev. Fauntroy to the DC city council, where he served from 1967 to 1969. For his leadership in the home rule struggle, the people of the District of Columbia showed their confidence in Rev. Fauntroy by electing him to the House of Representatives. In Congress, Fauntroy was a father of home rule for the District of Columbia, which allowed the District to elect its own Mayor and city council. Even before his election, Fauntroy was a national figure in the civil rights movement and a key advisor to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Rev. King named him director of his Washington bureau of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and national coordinator of the Poor People's Campaign. He later was chair of the board of directors of the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Social Change in Atlanta, Georgia. I am pleased to join the congregation of New Bethel Baptist Church and I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Rev. Walter Fauntroy for his unusually successful and dedicated life of service to the people of the United States of America, the residents of the District of Columbia, and the congregation of the New Bethel Baptist Church.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for his hard work and for his leadership. It's a rare privilege to cosponsor a bill about a law that I once enforced, but no pleasure at this time because it takes me back to the future, repeating what Congress did on this floor more than 40 years ago, permitting only what the act previously enforced, exactly as it was when I chaired the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, both before and since that time. The plaintiff in a discrimination suit carries a heavy burden; Congress never meant it to be an impossible burden. This is secret information--the pay of your coworkers. There is no way for you to know that kind of information any more than you know the health condition of your coworkers. Therefore, what we usually do in enforcement is give an incentive for the employer to contain his liability through self- remediation. The moment he finds the problem, he can contain his liability by in fact correcting the problem. Essentially what the Supreme Court has done is to perversely invite him to hold out for 180 days, and then it's all over, no matter how much discrimination. This is a bill that must be passed because it already was passed more than 40 years ago.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing, I believe for the last time, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, simultaneously with our Senate partners, Senators Joe Lieberman and Orin Hatch. The bill we introduce today also will add two permanent House seats, the first increase in 96 years. It therefore carries a triple bonus: the first vote for the District of Columbia after 212 years, an additional seat for Utah, and two new permanent seats for the House of Representatives itself. The citizens of the District of Columbia are deeply grateful for the persistent partnership and a bipartisan dedication that Senator Lieberman and Senator Hatch continue to bring to this bill, and for the continued support of Utah Governor Jon Huntsman. Because of the importance to the city of achieving the vote after more than two centuries, the D.C. Voting Rights Act is my first bill of the 111th Congress. This year we introduce the bill as members of the armed services from the District of Columbia are again engaged in war abroad. In gratitude for the service of our residents serving today, and of those who have served since our country was founded, I dedicate the bill this year to the first soldier from the District to die for his country in the Iraq War, 21-year-old D.C. National Guard Specialist, Daryl Dent, and to the District's first unknown soldier to die after he picked up arms to fight for liberation on the promise of taxation without representation. Although two centuries apart, the first to die in these wars had in common fighting for the vote. Our first residents here fought in the War for Independence. Specialist Dent gave his life ensuring the vote for Iraqi citizens, a right he did not live to get for himself Today's bill is the first in the Free and Equal series of bills that I will introduce this session to complete the full roster of citizenship rights the residents of the Nation's capital, that the first soldiers were promised and for which today's soldiers continue to give their lives. There can be no doubt that the revolutionaries who invented America's most quoted national slogan did not create a new nation in order to get the vote, only to turn around and deny the vote to the citizens of their capital. This bill was passed by the House in the 110th Congress, thanks to Speaker Nancy Pelosi who has long fought for the rights of D.C. residents and personally insisted that this legislation go forward as a bill of historic importance, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, my long-time regional friend, who has been an especially outspoken champion of this bill; Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, who gave the bill his priority attention, emblematic of the strong support he always has brought to our rights throughout his long service in Congress; and Chairman Henry Waxman, who as ranking member and then as chair of the Oversight and Government Reform committee, also was a central figure in ensuring passage; and many others among my colleagues in both chambers and both parties, who have made special efforts for passage of the D.C. House Voting Rights Act. My special thanks to Tom Davis, my good friend and strong partner on this bill, who retired at the end of last session. It was Tom's idea to pair the District with Utah after Utah narrowly missed getting a seat following the last census. I will always be grateful to Tom for the unfailing bipartisan spirit that characterized all his work as chair of the Oversight and Government Reform committee, especially his consistent respect for home rule and for affording me every opportunity to fashion this bill when he was in the Republican majority and I was a minority member. I must also thank the two important coalitions of organizations that have led this fight, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, whose leader, Wade Henderson also has been a close advisor throughout the many years of this struggle, and D.C. Vote, and its leader Ilir Zherka, who gave our bill indispensable strength through a superior grassroots organization that led the successful lobbying strategy here and nationwide and singlehandedly raised the funds necessary to take D.C.'s struggle national. There is every reason to believe that the D.C. bill will finally prevail this year. The bill easily passed in the House in 2007, and now has an estimated 64 votes in the Senate, considerably more than the 60 needed. The addition of seven Democratic senators, who replaced seven Republican opponents of the bill, together with the eight remaining Republicans who supported the bill, should assure that the bill will have significantly more than the 57 Senate votes it received in 2007. We are equally encouraged that President-elect Barack Obama, who was a co-sponsor of the bill in the Senate, will sign the D.C. House Voting Rights Act when it reaches his desk. My service in Congress has been defined by the search for a way to get full representation for the city where my family has lived since before the Civil War. That search has been guided by the pursuit of the maximum possible, including the two-day debate followed by a vote on statehood more than 10 years ago, the vote I won in the Committee of the Whole during my second term, and the ``No Taxation Without Representation'' Act for votes both in the House and Senate. The struggle has been driven always by what was required but also by what was possible, as with the Committee of the Whole vote on some but not all matters on the House floor and the Home Rule Act, the path-breaking enacted before I came to Congress that gave the city partial self- government. The Congress which has always been divided by regional and parochial concerns, never does what is clearly right, even granting a vote to American citizens who are second per capita in federal income taxes paid to support their government and have served in every war, including the war that created our country driven by the slogan of ``No Taxation without Representation.'' However, the people of the District of Columbia have never ceased demanding the full measure of their rights, while insisting on all that is possible for each generation. The people of the nation's proud capital will never give up on our full rights as American citizens.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing, I believe for the last time, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, simultaneously with our Senate partners, Senators Joe Lieberman and Orrin Hatch. The bill we introduce today also will add two permanent House seats, the first increase in 96 years. It therefore carries a triple bonus: the first vote for the District of Columbia after 212 years, an additional seat for Utah, and two new permanent seats for the House of Representatives itself. The citizens of the District of Columbia are deeply grateful for the persistent partnership and bipartisan dedication that Senator Lieberman and Senator Hatch continue to bring to this bill, and for the continued support of Utah Governor Jon Huntsman. Because of the importance to the city of achieving the vote after more than two centuries, the D.C. House Voting Rights Act is my first bill of the 111th Congress. This year we introduce the bill as members of the armed services from the District of Columbia are again engaged in war abroad. In gratitude for the service of our residents serving today, and of those who have served since our country was founded, I dedicate the bill this year to the first soldier from the District to die for his country in the Iraq War, 21-year-old D.C. National Guard Specialist Daryl Dent, and to the District's first unknown soldier to die after picking up arms to fight for liberation on the promise of no taxation without representation. Although two centuries apart, the first to die in these wars had in common fighting for the vote. Our first residents here fought in the War for Independence. Specialist Dent gave his life ensuring the vote for Iraqi citizens, a right he did not live to get for himself. Today's bill is the first in the Free and Equal series of bills that I will introduce this session to complete the full roster of citizenship rights for residents of the Nation's capital that the first soldiers were promised and for which today's soldiers continue to give their lives and their service for our country. There can be no doubt that the revolutionaries who invented America's most quoted national slogan did not create a new Nation in order to get the vote, only to turn around and deny the vote to the citizens of their capital. This bill was passed by the House in the 110th Congress, thanks to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has long fought for the rights of D.C. residents and personally insisted that this legislation go forward as a bill of historic importance; Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, my long-time regional friend, who has been an especially outspoken champion of this bill; Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, who gave the bill his priority attention, emblematic of the strong support he has always brought to our rights throughout his long service in Congress; and Chairman Henry Waxman, who as ranking member and then as chair of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, also was a central figure in ensuring passage; and many others among my colleagues in both Chambers and both parties, who have made special efforts for passage of the D.C. House Voting Rights Act. My special thanks to Tom Davis, my good friend and a strong partner on this bill, who retired at the end of last session. It was Tom's idea to pair the District with Utah after Utah narrowly missed getting a seat following the last census. I will always be grateful to Tom for the unfailing bipartisan spirit that characterized all his work as chair of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, especially his consistent respect for home rule and for affording me every opportunity to fashion this bill when he was a member of the Republican majority and I was a minority member. I must also thank the two important coalitions of organizations that have led this fight. the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, whose leader, Wade Henderson, also has been a close advisor throughout the many years of this struggle, and D.C. Vote and its leader, Ilir Zherka, who gave our bill a big quantum leap in strength it never had before through a superior indispensable grassroots organization that was born to lead the successful lobbying strategy here and nationwide and that singlehandedly raised the funds necessary to make D.C.'s struggle a national campaign. There is every reason to believe that the D.C. bill will finally prevail this year. The bill easily passed in the House in 2007, and now has an estimated 64 votes in the Senate, considerably more than the 60 needed. The addition of seven Democratic senators, who replaced seven Republican opponents of the bill, together with the eight remaining Republicans who supported the bill, should assure that our bill will have significantly more than the 57 Senate votes it received in 2007. We are equally encouraged that President-elect Barack Obama, who was a co-sponsor of the bill in the Senate, will sign the D.C. House Voting Rights Act when it reaches his desk. My service in Congress has been defined by the search for ways to get full representation for the city where my family has lived since before the Civil War. That search has been guided by the pursuit of the maximum that was possible, including the two-day debate followed by the first and only vote on statehood more than 10 years ago, the vote I won in the Committee of the Whole during my second term, and the ``No Taxation Without Representation'' Act for votes in both the House and Senate. Our struggle has always been driven by what was required but we also have insisted on all that was possible, as with the District's first floor vote, the Committee of the Whole vote on some but not all matters on the House floor and the Home Rule Act, the path-breaking bill enacted before I came to Congress that gave the city partial self- government. The Congress. which has always been divided by regional and parochial concerns, virtually never does all that is required at one time, even granting a vote to American citizens who are second per capita in Federal income taxes paid to support their Government and served in every war, including the war that created our country. However, the people of the District of Columbia have never ceased demanding the full measure of their rights, while insisting on all that is possible for each generation. The people of the Nation's proud capital will never give up until achieving their full rights as American citizens. Today's bill is another big step to achieve full and equal citizenship.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Eastern High School graduating classes of 1957, 1958, and 1959. These alumni will be remembered in the history of our country as the first African Americans to attend classes that were no longer segregated in the District of Columbia after the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education. The courage and determination shown by these pioneers when they were teenagers were harbingers of the success, professional achievement, and exemplary lives that have characterized the classes of 1957, 1958, and 1959. I ask the House to join me in honoring the 50th anniversary classes of 1957, 1958, and 1959 at Eastern High School in the Nation's capital.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the entire committee and subcommittee for the strong bipartisan support that this bill and the work that uncovered it have had throughout.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, we very much appreciate that the House has gotten to this bill before we adjourn. This bill arose from oversight, and I think emphasizes the importance of oversight. Essentially it eliminates proxy ownership of vital FPS contracting operations. As a result of oversight and reports from workers and sometimes from unions, we learned that there were unpaid contract guards. As a result of the hearings, upon learning of these reports, we found that there was a contractor who was a felon, had spent 5 years in jail for money laundering and fraud. What we discovered was sometimes there were unpaid guards working out of, of all places, the Department of Homeland Security, and that at other times the money had been received, as in the case of the proxy ownership, and had not been paid. Security guards have grown to overwhelm the Federal Protective Service which is the official service that guards these buildings. The decrease in the Federal Protective Service is itself a hazard. But with 15,000 Federal security guards, that means hundreds probably of contractors, because many of them are small businesses. As the number of security guards and therefore contractors has grown, it is important that our vigilance of the contract operations also increases. I was particularly concerned because these reports came in, from all places, the Nation's capital and the national capital region. This is the region at the top of the list of places where we are always on the alert against terrorism. We want to particularly compliment the workers who continued to work even though they were unpaid. I want to give some credit to ICE because in the hearings where we followed up to see that this matter was corrected while this bill was pending, we worked closely with ICE which had jurisdiction over the Federal Protective Service and now has an ombudsman for security guard contracts; it centralized contracting operations so that prompt payment and monitoring of the invoices can occur. We gave them a deadline to cure that backlog, and they cured that backlog by August of last year. What this bill does is to now shut the door with legislation that was clearly required after the discovery of proxy ownership by a felon who had, essentially, the responsibility for guards' guarding vital buildings in the Nation's capital and perhaps elsewhere. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 3068. The bill is the result of two oversight hearings held by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management that examined the role of the Federal Protective Service in providing security to our Nation's public buildings. There was evidence and serious allegations of wrongdoings, chaos and irregularities in the contracting and employment of private security guards who protect Federal employees and facilities. This legislation intends to preserve the security of the country's most sensitive buildings. The Senate amendment supports the principles of the House bill and authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to devise regulations that prohibit contracts for the provision of guard services to any business owned or controlled by a convicted felon. In addition, the Senate amendment provides some limited flexibility for the contract officer to identify serious felons and create guidelines for the contracting officer to assess mitigating factors and the risks associated with previous convictions. I urge all Members to vote for the Senate amendment to H.R. 3068, the Federal Protective Service Guard Contracting Reform Act of 2008. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3068.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3068) to prohibit the award of contracts to provide guard services under the contract security guard program of the Federal Protective Service to a business concern that is owned, controlled, or operated by an individual who has been convicted of a felony.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. It is very important to note because it's the closest history on which we are now relying. ``What made matters worse was a big drop in U.S. consumer economy, far more than can be explained by the stock market crash.'' Another commentator said: ``The basic lesson from the Great Depression is that government cannot permit massive collapses of banks or spending.'' And, finally, after Roosevelt stabilized the economy, and it still didn't come back, something called the, ``Roosevelt recession,'' came, and then he began to stimulate the economy, and the economy began to go. October to January is too long to leave the American people to fend for themselves while Congress hopes that rescuing Wall Street will rescue workers and unemployment. If we are going to help Wall Street, we must not leave the American people paying for it without any help for them.

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for his work on this absolutely essential bill. It's inconceivable that Congress would go home without a bill that is just as important as the so-called ``bailout.'' Even if the bailout becomes some kind of quid pro quo, and many are trying hard to make it acceptable, I don't believe it will quell the outrage about the economy, particularly the major part of the economy where people work and where they do business, because that economy is also falling. And the outrage comes because the American people think we don't even notice the steep rise in joblessness, the deficits mounting in their own State and local governments where there is decreasing revenue from property and income taxes. They think we are oblivious to that. We're all focused on Wall Street, yes, but it's unconscionable to go home without taking action on a bill that would put money directly into the economy where it can be spent now and where it's targeted directly to be spent in this country, unlike the well meaning last stimulus. The Saudis got that stimulus. We will be lucky if the bailout of Wall Street even stabilizes the economy. But we can't fail to understand that Wall Street's firestorm has now spread throughout the economy. We see it in unemployment. We see it in the halt in job creation and continuing foreclosures and delinquencies and mortgage and rent payments, in penalties for withdrawal from people's retirement. We can't let this collapse go on for 4 months while Congress is gone and then come back and think that everything is going to be all right. Paulson and the Fed came forward to try to catch Wall Street before it collapsed. We have to do the same thing for the economy on which the American people are focused. And we can't forget history. I reread history. Here is what we learned from the 1930s.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. You know that this substitute is going to be strangled with a thousand holes, and still you march in salute to the NRA. I say to the cosponsors, watch what you vote for. If you analyze this bill, this substitute, step by step, you can think of half a dozen bills of major importance. Well, they can stick up the Democrats and make us sue for peace. Watch the precedent you set. Watch what you vote for tomorrow. Defeat the substitute. Vote for Waxman-Norton.

Ms. NORTON. You allow children to own AK-47s. You allow this in the Nation's capital. No age limit whatsoever on owning a gun. This isn't Mississippi, sir. You have just been elected to Congress; you better understand where you are. This is a big city. You have squandered critical time with the House while the economy is falling down behind you, Wall Street is collapsing. Why? Because the NRA told you to do so. I've been to the Senate, too. There's another House. And you know what I know.

Ms. NORTON. You now ask us to vote on a substitute mandating in the Nation's capital one of the most permissive gun laws in the country, no registration of gun laws, no way for the police to know who has a gun or to trace guns used in committing a crime. Mandates. Gun show loophole. Licensed dealers must do a criminal background check, but private individuals don't have to. And we exempt gun shows. You can have gun shows in the Nation's capital, perfectly legal. D.C. can't close any of these loopholes because you Federalize gun laws, you leave us with a bare bill. The police can't issue any regulations. You allow the stockpiling of assault weapons. You allow gun running between Maryland, Virginia and the District. You allow people, voluntarily committed to a mental institution, to get out and the next day they can own a gun even while John Hinkley is still institutionalized at St. Elizabeth's Hospital for an attempt on the life of President Reagan.