Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2914, the Housing Survivors of Major Disasters Act, introduced by Mr. Espaillat of New York and Miss Gonzalez-Colon of Puerto Rico. This bipartisan legislation is aimed at reducing the bureaucratic burden placed on the disaster survivors when applying for Federal assistance. In the wake of Hurricanes Irma and Maria, and several other disasters in the continental United States, including wildfires near California or near Oregon, many disaster survivors have struggled to produce documents necessary to prove their residency. This is particularly difficult when those disasters have decimated all of their possessions and records. Additionally, qualified survivors have had trouble registering for assistance because they resided in homes passed down from generation to generation, in areas where title record-keeping hasn't been adequately maintained to track these transfers. We have seen this issue time and again over the last decade and a half since Hurricane Katrina. FEMA has worked to address these challenges, but all efforts to this point have been ad hoc. H.R. 2914 formalizes the home certification process that FEMA has developed over the years, allowing survivors to self-certify their residency with an expanded list of acceptable supported documentation. Survivors should not be expected to wade through bureaucratic red tape after their lives have been upended by a disaster. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 2914, and I would ask my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), my good friend.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce a bill to correct a retirement issue for several categories of workers who used to be under the District of Columbia retirement system. In 1997, Congress transferred several categories of workers who participated in D.C.'s defined contribution plan from 1987 to 1997 to the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). However, those workers' service from 1987 to 1997 was not counted for purposes of creditable service or annuity amount in FERS. In 2009, Congress gave these employees the right to have this service counted for creditable service. My bill would correct this last retirement issue for these public servants. It would allow these workers to buy into the FERS annuity amount for the 1987-1997 by paying 1.3 percent of their base pay plus interest, essentially the employee contribution for this time, and then allowing them the full retirement benefit to which they are entitled. Our bill is an important step to assisting these workers to get the retirement benefits they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the outstanding achievements of Bruce Johnson, who will retire on December 31, 2020, after 44 years as a distinguished television news anchor and reporter. I have worked with Bruce Johnson ever since being elected to Congress and will miss his heavy hitting questions and incisive reporting. Bruce Johnson has won 22 Emmys, is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists Hall of Fame, the Washington, DC Hall of Fame and will soon be inducted into the Kentucky Journalism Hall of Fame at the University of Kentucky. He has also received the Ted Yates Award and the NATAS Board of Governors Award and is a member of the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Press Club. Throughout his career with WUSA9, a CBS affiliate in the District of Columbia, Bruce Johnson has reported on stories ranging from local D.C. news to federal matters, from the local real estate market to government shutdowns and from D.C.'s mistreatment in the CARES Act to violence on the streets of D.C. During Johnson's distinguished career, he has shed light on difficult topics for his audience in D.C. and across the nation. Bruce Johnson's career took him from his hometown of Louisville, Kentucky to places as far away as Rome, Bangkok, Dakar and Tokyo on special assignments for WUSA9. Even before the international chapter of his career, Johnson made a name for himself in D.C. by reporting on notable stories, including the 1982 Metro train derailment and the 1977 Hanafi Siege, in which 142 people were held hostage by 12 gunmen leading to the deaths of two individuals. Bruce Johnson endured a difficult blow from a heart attack in 1992 while on assignment in Southeast D.C. His journey back to health included completing the Marine Corps Marathon. In 2018, he was dealt a second blow when he was diagnosed with cancer. He responded to these illnesses as a true reporter, taking Americans along with him to help provide clarity on difficult experiences. Johnson stayed true to his honest reporting even when he became the story. He is the author of two books. The first, entitled Heart to Heart, was inspired by his heart attack, and the second, All or Nothing, was an expose on the life of D.C. basketball player Victor Page. I have known Bruce my entire career, and I had hoped that he would remain at Channel 9 as long as I remained in Congress. Bruce commented once during an interview that he covered my first congressional campaign. Having been on his show many times to discuss issues that affect D.C. residents, I have grown to consider Bruce a friend. He has helped tell the story of D.C. 's challenges and triumphs and lent his platform and voice to the fight for congressional equality for the District. Bruce's demeanor and his down-to-earth, relatable storytelling will be missed on the air as he goes on to pursue other accomplishments in the next chapter of his life. I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Bruce Johnson for his distinguished career in journalism. I wish him the very best in the years to come.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chair Grijalva for taking the Women Who Worked on the Home Front World War II Memorial Act through committee and bringing it to the floor. I appreciate that he allowed me to sit in and ask questions, and he conducted a hearing and pressed it forward quickly. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan bill would authorize the establishment of a memorial on Federal land here in the District of Columbia commemorating the efforts of 18 million American women who kept the home front running during World War II. Women are dramatically underrepresented in our memorials. A 17-year-old constituent of mine, Raya Kenney, the founder of the Women Who Worked on the Home Front Foundation--yes, her own foundation--came up with the idea to honor the women on the home front who supported the World War II effort. Raya wondered why the women on the home front, whose efforts were so instrumental in maintaining the stability of the country during World War II, have not received much recognition for their contributions compared to the men who fought bravely in World War II. This bill would authorize the Women Who Worked on the Home Front Foundation to establish a memorial to honor these women. The memorial is designed to be interactive and to educate visitors on the important roles women played during World War II. No Federal funds would be required. Between 1940 and 1945, the percentage of women in the workforce increased from 27 percent to nearly 37 percent. And by 1945, one in four married women worked outside the home. The work done by women on the home front opened doors for women in the workplace generally and had a profound effect on the job market going forward, and even up to today. As a result of their efforts, women on the home front redefined many occupations that were especially considered men's work. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Stop Sexual Assault and Harassment in Transportation Act, which would institute reporting requirements for incidents of sexual assault and harassment in passenger transportation carriers including airlines, vessels, buses, commuter and intercity passenger railroads, and transportation network companies like Uber and Lyft. I am pleased that this bill includes provisions that direct the Department of Transportation to collect information on the number of sexual assault and harassment incidents and to make that information publicly available, which Representative Rick Crawford and I included in our bipartisan AWARE Act. I believe that until we collect this information, the full magnitude of the problem will not be understood. We have heard some of it reported by my good friend just now from Oregon just now. In a 2018 survey of 2,000 flight attendants, one in five said they had been harassed, witnessed a passenger being sexually assaulted, or received a report of passenger-on-passenger sexual assault. Nearly 70 percent reported experiencing sexual harassment, and almost one in five reported being sexually assaulted by passengers. In fiscal year 2014, 38 instances of in-flight sexual assault were reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This number increased to 63 reported cases in 2017, but many instances of in-flight sexual assault remain unreported, because victims are fearful of contacting the authorities. FBI statistics indicate that as many as 75 percent of incidents go unreported. On cruise ships, sex crimes outweigh any other major offense. A 2013 congressional report found that minors were victims in one-third of reported sexual assaults. There was bipartisan support for a provision in the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2018 to establish a sexual misconduct working group to develop best practices for addressing sexual misconduct on flights, employee training, and law enforcement notification.

Ms. NORTON. This legislation builds upon that work, requiring passenger transportation carriers to establish formal policies, training, and reporting structures for sexual assault and harassment and adds penalties for individuals who physically or sexually assault or threaten to assault transportation personnel. I support the passage of the Stop Sexual Assault and Harassment in Transportation Act so that every person can feel safe from violence and harassment while traveling.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I rise to introduce the Francis G. Newlands Memorial Removal Act. This bill would remove the plaque and inscription bearing Francis G. Newlands' name from Chevy Chase Circle, a federal park located both in the District of Columbia and Maryland. I am pleased that Representative Jamie Raskin joins me in introducing this bill. Newlands was a U.S. senator from Nevada, a conservationist and the founder of the Chevy Chase Land Company, which developed the Chevy Chase neighborhood that touches D.C. and Maryland. Newlands was also a segregationist. He built Connecticut Avenue and dedicated it to D.C., and ran a streetcar up the road to the newly built Chevy Chase Lake. However, homes on Connecticut Avenue were purposely priced to keep working families out, and covenants were later added to many of the property deeds in Chevy Chase explicitly prohibiting the land from ever being owned by African Americans or Jews. These covenants have since been declared void. He also used his conservationism as a way to keep Black and white Americans separate. In the late 1800s, he and Senator William Stewart secured 2,000 acres of land for Rock Creek Park. Establishing this park not only increased property values for landowners like Stewart and Newlands, but also kept white communities distinct from emerging Black communities on what they called the ``wrong side of the park.'' Newlands' racist views went even further. In 1912, he called for the repeal the 15th amendment, which gave African American men the right to vote. The fountain was established in 1932 by Congress. In 1990, the Chevy Chase Land Company also added the plaque next to the fountain. My bill would remove Newlands' name from the fountain and remove the plaque entirely. A resolution to remove Newlands' name from the fountain was first introduced by the Chevy Chase Advisory Neighborhood Commission in 2014, and on July 27, 2020, the Commission voted unanimously to ask the National Park Service to remove the bronze plaque bearing Newlands' name and to begin discussion on a new name for the fountain. My legislation would gift both the plaque and the inscription on the fountain to Newlands' descendants. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the outstanding achievements of Ken Thomas, a career Legislative Attorney with the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service (CRS), who retired from CRS on August 28, 2020, after 36 years of distinguished government service. In his 33 years with CRS, Ken became the leading expert on constitutional law, and he made invaluable contributions to the work of Congress with his substantive knowledge in various legal areas. He advised Congress on statehood and other political status changes for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, federalism, individual and civil rights, criminal law and procedure, the federal judiciary and education law. Over the years, House and Senate committees called on Ken to testify at hearings and share with them his expertise and non-partisan analysis of important issues. Last year, for example, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform invited Ken to testify at a hearing on the Washington, D.C. Admission Act (H.R. 51). During the course of this high-profile and contentious hearing, Ken answered numerous questions from Members about the constitutionality of granting statehood to the District of Columbia, key to passage of H.R. 51 by the House in June. My staff and I, in particular, relied on Ken for his analysis of legal issues involving the uniquely complicated relationship between the federal government and the District of Columbia, ranging from constitutional law to the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to appropriations law. Ken always provided prompt, well-reasoned and well- researched legal analysis. The following is a recommendation for one of the 28 CRS awards that Ken received: During his tenure in the American Law Division, Ken Thomas demonstrated a level of energy and dedication to the mission of serving Congress that has been extraordinary. He has willingly and without hesitation undertaken challenging and difficult assignments from the Congress. He has been a prolific writer and has provided comprehensive and in-depth legal research and analysis in a number of legal areas . . . . He is always available for and capable of tackling new issues, especially those that pose complex constitutional questions. He regularly demonstrates a high degree of intellectual curiosity, a trait that inspires him to ``go the extra mile'' for his congressional clients. During his career with CRS, Ken prepared over 200 written products for Congress, many of which have been cited in the Congressional Record, committee reports and congressional hearings. Academic law reviews and national publications, such as The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and The National Journal, have also cited his work. Ken has also delivered many keynote Continuing Legal Education lectures sponsored by CRS to positive reviews. From 1996 through 2013, Ken was one of the key contributors to the Senate document ``The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation'' (Constitution Annotated), serving as the Editor-in-Chief of the 2012 Centennial version of that volume, and he was the prime architect of the Constitution Annotated website. A public version of that website, constitution.congress.gov, was launched on Constitution Day 2019, and in the last 10 months, has had over 500,000 visits and one million page views. Ken received a B.A. in philosophy from Colby College in 1980 and a J.D. from The George Washington University in 1983. He worked at the U.S. Department of Education and as a clerk to Judge Bruce Mencher of the D.C. Superior Court before joining CRS. Ken has provided exemplary service to Congress throughout his distinguished career at CRS. I believe that all in Congress who have benefitted from his expertise and counsel join me in wishing him the very best in the years to come.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the Congress Leads by Example Act of 2020, which would subject Congress and the rest of the legislative branch to many of the workplace laws that protect employees in the private sector and the executive branch. Congress should abide by the laws it imposes on the American people and businesses. In 1995, Congress passed the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA), which applied 13 civil rights, labor and workplace safety and health laws to Congress and legislative branch entities. In 2018, after reports of sexual harassment in Congress and in light of the #MeToo movement, Congress passed the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act (Reform Act), which changed the name of the Office of Compliance to the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR), revised the process to resolve workplace claims and extended CAA protections to unpaid staff, interns and fellows. It also made Members of Congress personally liable for their own violations of harassment and retaliation laws. However, more remains to be done. The CAA and the Reform Act were important first steps in making the legislative branch accountable for its employment practices, but they did not finish the job. As noted, the CAA did bring the legislative branch under 13 major civil rights, labor and workplace safety and health laws but it omitted important substantive and administrative protections. In its latest Section 102(b) biennial report to Congress, the OCWR identified additional provisions of federal workplace laws and standards that should be applicable to the legislative branch. OCWR's recommendations include providing whistleblowers with protection from retaliation by making the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 applicable to the legislative branch. My bill takes into account the OCWR report, and seeks both to apply the standard of fairness to employees in the legislative branch that Congress requires for other employees and to provide a safer work environment for Congress, Capitol Hill employees and visitors by bringing the legislative branch in line with the legal requirements of private sector employers and the executive branch. My bill provides general whistleblower protections and anti- retaliation measures and makes additional Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) retaliation provisions applicable to the legislative branch. My bill also provides subpoena authority to OCWR to conduct inspections and investigations into OSHA violations. This bill also furthers the CAA's mission to prevent discrimination in legislative branch offices by prohibiting the legislative branch from making adverse employment decisions on the basis of an employee's wage garnishment or involvement in bankruptcy proceedings pursuant to the Consumer Credit Protection Act and Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code. Finally, this bill bolsters the CAA's recordkeeping requirements. It extends the obligation to maintain accurate records of safety information and employee injuries, as otherwise required by OSHA, as well as employee records necessary to administer anti-discrimination laws in the legislative branch. By passing this bill, Congress would help restore the public trust in this institution by redoubling our efforts to exercise leadership by example. I urge bipartisan support for this important measure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, even during this pandemic with most agencies down, we had not heard complaints from the Postal Service until Louis DeJoy was appointed Postmaster General. On the contrary, the pandemic had not kept our mail from being faithfully delivered. Almost immediately after DeJoy assumed office, pandemonium broke out. For example, in Ward 8 of my district, there was no mail for 2 weeks. And the District and 46 States have been warned by the Postal Service itself that it cannot guarantee that all mail ballots will arrive in time to be counted. Mr. DeJoy did not tell the truth at the Senate hearing yesterday. We know that from a July 15 memorandum directing employees explicitly to leave mail behind and to significantly cut overtime. We know that from an August 7 Postal Service action that reassigned 23 top executives with decades of institutional knowledge of postal operations in order to centralize operations. We know and will bring out before this hearing is over today that the Post Office continues to be sabotaged.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Special Elections Home Rule Act. This bill would give the District of Columbia complete authority to set the date of special elections for local offices, as other jurisdictions already have. Our bill simply removes a Home Rule Act limitation on the District that is not only inconsistent with the self-government granted by the Home Rule Act, but is also counterproductive. This bill follows legislation we got through Congress in 2012 that gave the D.C. Board of Elections (``Board'') more flexibility to set the date of special elections for local offices to maximize voter participation. Although we sought complete authority for the District over the scheduling of special elections, the 2012 law, the District of Columbia Special Election Reform Act, did not include this home-rule principle. D.C. should have complete authority over a matter that is unrelated to any other congressional district and has no relevance to Congress. The Home Rule Act originally required the Board to hold special elections on the first Tuesday 114 days from when the vacancy occurred and allowed the Board to schedule special elections on the same day as the next general election if that election occurred 60 days from when a special election would otherwise have been held. This inflexibility led to special elections being held on religious holidays and forced the District to hold a special election separate from an upcoming general election, costing the District hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra election costs. The 2012 law required the Board to hold a special election on a Tuesday occurring between 70 and 174 days after the vacancy. Our bill is an important step to perfect home rule for the District. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Courts Improvement Act of 2020. This bill would make several important changes to improve the operations of the D.C. Courts. First, this bill would remove the consent requirement for D.C. Superior Court magistrate judges in certain situations. Currently, consent from the parties involved is required for a magistrate judge to perform duties in the Civil, Criminal and Probate Divisions of the Superior Court. Removing this requirement from the Civil and Probate Divisions in certain matters will further the efficiency of the judicial process. The bill also authorizes magistrate judges to issue search and arrest warrants and gives all magistrate judges contempt authority. Next, the bill updates several aspects of juror service in the Superior Court. First, it ties Superior Court juror pay to the pay jurors receive in federal court. Currently, the Board of Judges of the Superior Court has authority to set the pay of jurors, but it is capped at the rate paid to federal jurors. Despite this, Superior Court jurors are crrently paid less than federal jurors. The bill also modernizes juror summonses by allowing jurors to complete the questionnaire electronically, which will save the court money on postage and staff time. The bill further allows jurors who are 70 years old or older to be excused from jury service if the individual so chooses. The bill also makes improvements for the employees of the courts. D.C. Courts nonjudicial employees and Public Defender Service (PDS) employees are deemed to be federal employees for the purposes of early retirement provisions in federal law, but the Courts and PDS do not currently have the permanent authority to make voluntary separation incentive payments or ``buyouts''--to employees who separate by voluntary retirement or by resignation, unlike the authority possessed by federal executive and judicial branches. The D.C. Courts and PDS currently have this authority in fiscal year 2020 under the fiscal year 2020 District of Columbia Appropriations bill, but this bill would provide permanent authority. Next, this bill allows the D.C. Courts to pay attorneys appointed to represent indigent defendants in criminal proceedings and indigent children in delinquency and need of supervision proceedings up to the amount currently allowed in federal court. The D.C. Courts' current rate has not been updated in eight years, and is $42 per hour less than the federal rate. Similarly, the bill eliminates the $25 hourly rate fixed rate for D.C. Criminal Justice Act investigators. Federal investigators in D.C. are currently paid $65 an hour, and up to $75 an hour in death penalty and other complex cases. This bill also would move the appointment and removal of the Register of Wills (ROW) and supervisory responsibilities from the Superior Court and the Chief Judge of the Superior Court; respectively, to the Executive Officer of the D.C. Courts. This change would provide the Executive Officer oversight of the personnel for the entire Probate Division, including the ROW, which will improve efficiency in making personnel decisions and in the overall administration of the Probate Division. While both the federal government and the District of Columbia government have statutory authority to give retroactive pay increase to employees on board at the time the increase is ordered and to employees who have retired (not resigned) or died between the date the increase becomes effective and the date it is ordered, the D.C. Courts do not have this authority. This bill corrects this deficiency. The bill also makes corrections to portions of the D.C. Code that reference the Domestic Violence Division where it still refers to its old name, the Domestic Violence Unit, and updates how title 11 of the D.C. Code references individuals with intellectual disabilities. Under the Home Rule Act, Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over title 11 of the D.C. Code (relating to organization and jurisdiction of the local D.C. Courts). Because of this, in recent history, legislation to improve the operations of the D.C. Courts has been enacted into law every few years. I hope this bill will likewise be adopted, and hopefully in a bipatisan manner. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I am a cosponsor of the Commission on the Social Status of Black Men and Boys Act (H.R. 1636), which passed the House on July 27, 2020. The social disparities that impact Black men and boys have long needed special attention. In light of these challenges and the demand for community-based solutions, I established the first D.C. Commission on Black Men and Boys in 2001 to educate Members of Congress and staff on issues and problems Black men and boys face and to support ideas and community initiatives that improve their quality of life. This commission stoked so much interest in Congress that in 2013, Congressman Danny Davis and I established the Congressional Caucus on Black Men and Boys, which seeks to bring the myriad issues facing African-American men and boys to the forefront of congressional and public attention. The Commission on the Social Status of Black Men and Boys Act would create government responsibility for the first time. It would create a Commission on the Social Status of Black Men and Boys within the United States Commission on Civil Rights that would have responsibility for addressing important issues, such as disparities in employment and incarceration rates for African-American men and boys. When Members are able to meet once COVID-19 subsides, our Congressional Caucus on Black Men and Boys has called for a Caucus hearing to hear directly from the African-American community on the state of justice in America for African-American men and boys following the killings of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, by white police officers and Ahmaud Arbery, an African-American jogger killed by two armed white men in Georgia. In both cases videos exposed attacks, marking a new social media era for seeking racial justice in real time. The bill I am supporting today would help further address these important issues. I stand in strong support of the Social Status of Black Men and Boys Act because it makes improving conditions for Black men and boys an official government responsibility.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the bipartisan Great American Outdoors Act, which, among other things, would address the National Park Service's (NPS) deferred maintenance backlog, a problem that disproportionately affects the National Capital Region and, especially, the District of Columbia. Twenty percent of the District consists of parkland, almost 90 percent of which is under the jurisdiction of NPS. National parks are some of America's greatest treasures, yet NPS, the agency that maintains our federal parks, has a $12 billion maintenance backlog. One-sixth of all projects in the backlog are in the National Capital Region, with $1.3 billion in D.C. itself. The National Mall and Memorial Parks have the highest number of deferred maintenance projects in the nation, with more than $840 million in needed repairs still outstanding, according to Pew Charitable Trusts. The most significant deferred maintenance projects involve refurbishing memorials and making necessary repairs for supporting infrastructure. Although these parks are located in D.C., they are of national significance. The National Mall and Memorial Parks accommodate more than 36 million visits each year and roughly 30,000 people use their 15 softball fields, eight volleyball courts, two rugby fields and the Washington Monument grounds for sporting events nearly year-round. This heavy use has caused a $13 million repair backlog for the Mall grounds. In addition to the National Mall and Memorial Parks, NPS owns most of D.C.'s neighborhood parks, including 156 small green spaces and many circles, squares and fountains throughout D.C. Also included in the backlog are historic sites such as Ford's Theatre, the FDR Memorial, East and West Potomac Parks, the Carter Barron Amphitheatre and the Belmont-Paul Women's Equality National Monument. I support passage of the Great American Outdoors Act so that NPS can properly maintain all of our incredible national parks.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California, Karen Bass, for leading this Special Order to our good colleague and friend, John Lewis. John and I were elected to the House of Representatives about the same time. Actually, he was elected a couple years before I was. But we were colleagues before either of us could have hoped to become Members of Congress. We were kids together in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the youth arm of the Southern Civil Rights Movement. The difference between John and me is I was in law school so I went in the summer, and John was a full-time member, who left school in order to join SNCC. SNCC came out of lunch counter sit-ins. Ella Baker called us all together because it was clear that the Civil Rights Movement was developing a youth arm. And Ella Baker, the great elder of the Civil Rights Movement, decided all of us really should become an organization. John was not the first head of SNCC. Marion Barry was, because he was a lot more political than John, and he is remembered more today for his politics than for his civil rights acumen. When John was elected chair of SNCC, there was nothing political about it. His qualification was not that he was the strongest. His qualification was that he was the bravest. It is almost impossible to describe the risks John took in the more than 40 times he was arrested, because today, we are so used to civil disobedience. People right now are lying down on Pennsylvania Avenue after the George Floyd killing. I really want to call to your attention what it meant when John led young people to be arrested. Everybody has seen the film of his being knocked down as he marched in the front of the line; he had a concussion as a result of that. He never knew, as he led these marches, whether he would come out alive. Let me tell you about these marches when SNCC would kneel down and assume other nonviolent postures. On the other side, were not counter- demonstrators. On the other side were not other people who were confronting us nonviolently. On the other side were the police leading white mobs. They were befuddled by the tactics of SNCC and the Civil Rights Movement. Because when you kneel down and are nonviolent, they didn't quite know what to do with you or about you. John, of course, will always be remembered as a Member of the House of Representatives, but as I close, I must say, it will be difficult, even for John to have done more in the House than he did in the Civil Rights Movement, to do more in Congress than he did for his country. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the very few bills that is moving forward during this pandemic, and it is named H.R. 2, which means it was of great importance even before the pandemic. The transportation bills we have been filing have been essentially flat funded. It is time we put some money into our transportation system. The last bill was no mere extension. Our last bill was essentially that. There was no new funding on it. In fact, this bill breaks new ground. I have been on this committee ever since coming to Congress. Each transportation bill looked essentially the same as the last. However, with climate change, we can't write these bills in the same way. You see attention to climate change throughout this bill. You see a fund for greenhouse emissions. We have in this bill discretionary grants for electric vehicles. That was unknown and unseen in the last bill. We are paying special attention to disadvantaged business enterprises. We remember the George Floyd killing. We have not done a good job with these enterprises in my own region. We found that minority and women-owned firms were unlikely to receive contracts, even if they seemed fully qualified. And, of course, in this district, which staff and Members use to get to the House, we have funding money for the Metropolitan Transit Authority. Almost half of Federal employees in this region use Metro to get to this very House. Mr. Speaker, this bill breaks new ground, and this Congress should indicate that it is ready for a 21st century bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1017, I call up the bill (H.R. 51) to provide for the admission of the State of Washington, D.C. into the Union, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 51.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the United States is the only democratic country that denies both voting rights in its national legislature and local autonomy to the residents of its nation's capital. As we approach July Fourth, it is long past time to apply the Nation's oldest slogan, ``no taxation without representation,'' and the principle of consent of the governed to District of Columbia residents. H.R. 51 would do so, and Congress has both the moral obligation and the constitutional authority to pass the bill. H.R. 51 would admit the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth into the Union and reduce the size of the Federal District. The State would consist of 66 of the 68 square miles of the present-day Federal District. The reduced Federal District, over which Congress would retain plenary authority, would consist of 2 square miles. The reduced Federal District would consist of the Washington that Members of Congress and visitors associate with the Nation's Capital, including the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, and the principal Federal monuments. H.R. 51 has both the facts and the Constitution on its side. The Constitution does not establish any prerequisites for new States, but Congress generally has considered three factors in admission decisions: resources and population, support for statehood, and commitment to democracy. The District pays more Federal taxes per capita than any State and pays more Federal taxes than 22 States of the Union. The District's population of 705,000 is larger than those of Wyoming and Vermont, and the new State would be one of the seven States with a population under 1 million. D.C.'s $15.5 billion budget is larger than those of 12 States, and the District's AAA bond rating is higher than those of 35 States. D.C. has a higher per capita personal income and gross domestic product than any State. Eighty-six percent of D.C. residents voted in favor of statehood in 2016. In fact, D.C. residents have been fighting for voting rights in Congress and local autonomy for 219 years. The Constitution's Admissions Clause gives Congress the authority to admit new States, and all 37 new States have been admitted by an act of Congress. The Constitution's District Clause, which gives Congress plenary authority over the Federal District, sets a maximum size of the Federal District of 100 square miles. It does not set a minimum size. Congress previously has changed the size of the Federal District, including by reducing it 30 percent in 1846. Over the last few months, the Nation, and even the world, has witnessed discriminatory and outrageous treatment of D.C. residents by the Federal Government. In March, Congress passed the CARES Act, which deprived the District of $755 million in coronavirus fiscal relief by treating the District as a territory rather than a State. The HEROES Act, passed by the House in May, would restore those funds. This month, Federal police and out-of-State National Guard troops occupied D.C., without the consent of the D.C. Mayor, to respond to largely peaceful protests. Prior to this occupation of the city, there had been much more looting and property destruction in other cities, but the Federal Government did not occupy those cities. The Federal occupation occurred solely because the President thought that he could get away with it. He was wrong. For me, H.R. 51 is deeply personal. My great-grandfather, Richard Holmes, who escaped as a slave from Virginia on a plantation, made it as far as D.C., a walk to freedom but not to equal citizenship. For three generations, my family has been denied the rights other Americans take for granted.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the last thing we have to be concerned about is whether or not the 23rd Amendment will be repealed, and the bill, H.R. 51, contains an expedited procedure for that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my good neighbor and good friend, the majority leader of the House of Representatives.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland State (Mr. Sarbanes), my good friend, that ceded land in perpetuity out of which the District of Columbia was formed.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).