Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing two District of Columbia- based organizations, the Watkins Hornets Youth Association and the Ridge Road Titans Youth Coalition, on winning the American Youth Football National Championships. On December 7, 2018, the Watkins Hornets and the Ridge Road Titans traveled to Florida to compete in the American Youth Football National Championships for their respective age groups, ranging from nine to 13 years old. Each of these student athletes, as well as their parents and coaches, persevered through a long season, balancing school, football and other extracurricular activities to become national champions. Watkins Recreation Center and Ridge Road Recreation Center, which house their respective football teams, are among the elite when it comes to football. They place a strong emphasis on players as students first and athletes second. Located in the heart of the District's Wards 6 and 7, these organizations have been vital to their surrounding communities, providing programs to at-risk youth and families. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating these student athletes, parents and coaches on a job well done, as well as in acknowledging the work of both of these organizations in being community strongholds.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Increased Transparency in 501(c)(4) Organizations Act of 2018. This bill would require the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to make publicly available the forms organizations self-declaring under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) must file with the IRS. Americans have the right to know which organizations are operating under this section of the IRC. To be eligible for tax-exempt status under 501(c)(4), organizations, often referred to as ``social welfare organizations,'' must be ``devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.'' They can choose to apply for 501(c)(4) status from the IRS, or they can simply self-declare. Previously, organizations seeking to self-declare their 501(c)(4) status were not required even to notify the IRS of their existence. In 2015, however, Congress enacted the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (the PATH Act). Under that law, an organization seeking to self-declare their 501(c)(4) status now must file a notice with the IRS that it is operating under this section. The PATH Act did not, however, make the new notice form, Form 8976, subject to public disclosure. The IRS has opined that Form 8976 cannot be made available under the Freedom of Information Act or other disclosure laws. This creates a discrepancy between all organizations operating under Section 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations that applied that for status, for which the IRS must make publicly available information on their existence, and self-declared 501(c)(4) organizations. This discrepancy appears to have been inadvertently created by Congress when it passed the PATH Act. My bill would correct this oversight and mandate that the IRS publicly disclose Form 8976 upon request, thus allowing the public to know which organizations exist under 501(c)(4). In the aftermath of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which allows for unlimited expenditure in political campaigns from these ``social welfare'' groups, this bill is especially important to allow for greater transparency. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill, the Federal Government Advertising Equity Accountability Act, to require all federal agencies to include in their annual budget requests to Congress the amount they spend on advertising contracts with small disadvantaged businesses (SDBs) and businesses owned by minorities and women. Federal agencies would be required to provide prior, current, and projected total expenditures for advertising contracts. In 2007, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined spending on advertising contracts with minority-owned businesses by five agencies--the Department of Defense, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of the Interior, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration--and found that only five percent of the $4.3 billion available for advertising contracts went to minority businesses. In light of these concerning figures, several of my colleagues and I sent a letter to the GAO in April 2016 requesting updated information on the amount of federal advertising dollars spent with SDBs and businesses owned by minorities and women. That GAO report, released in July of this year, showed that in fiscal year 2017, only 16 percent of the federal government's advertising contract obligations went to SDBs and businesses owned by minorities and women. The federal government is the largest advertiser in the United States, and it has an obligation to ensure fair access to its contracts for SDBs and businesses owned by minorities and women. The GAO's findings make it clear that there is still much progress to be made. The regular collection of information on federal advertising contract obligations to SDBs and businesses owned by women and minorities, along with the provision of this information to legislators and stakeholders, is essential to bridging the divide between current statistics and a more inclusive advertising landscape. My bill would achieve these goals while also promoting transparency and encouraging federal agencies to strive to reach minorities, who often receive their daily news from smaller media outlets that serve communities of color. The requirement that agencies submit prior, current, and projected information regarding the amount of advertising dollars spent with SDBs and businesses owned by minorities and women will allow federal agencies to evaluate their progress over time. The regular collection of this information will also demonstrate that the promotion of equity in advertising, and in all areas of government, should be a continuous effort that is central to the mission of every agency. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill to require the Director of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA) and the District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency (PSA) to reside in the District of Columbia during their tenure. CSOSA is an independent federal agency created by Congress in the Revitalization Act that supervises only D.C. offenders on parole, probation and supervised release. PSA is an independent agency within CSOSA that supervises D.C. and federal defendants. This bill would be prospective and not apply to those already in office upon enactment. Congress has justifiably understood that federal officials must live in the jurisdiction they serve to ensure in-depth knowledge of the unique issues and challenges residents and these federal officials face, but federal officials serving the District have been excluded from such a requirement. This patronizing leftover from when the District was governed by the federal government has real effects on residents. There is no reason that the Directors of CSOSA and PSA, federal agencies that uniquely serve D.C. residents, should not be required to live in the District, engage with local communities and work closely with local officials. Adding residency requirements for federal officials serving the District is a matter of fairness that would make D.C. more like the states and even the territories, who enjoy residency requirements. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Kelly Harper, who was just named the District of Columbia's 2019 Teacher of the Year. Ms. Harper is a third-grade teacher at Amidon-Bowen Elementary School in the District and a native Washingtonian. She has been teaching for seven years. Because of her talent, she also trains other D.C. teachers, and she serves on Amidon-Bowen's Flamboyant Foundation Family Engagement Leadership Team. Ms. Harper believes that her teaching empowers her students, helping them become visionary leaders for the future who will fight for positive social change. Ms. Harper's award, which is given annually to a D.C. public school teacher who demonstrates outstanding leadership and commitment to student achievement, also includes a well-deserved $7,500 prize and $1,500 to support travel to national conferences. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Kelly Harper for her achievement as the District of Columbia's 2019 Teacher of the Year and for her outstanding work with students in the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I, along with Representative Donald S. Beyer Jr., introduce the Federal Police Camera and Accountability Act of 2018. This bill would require uniformed federal law enforcement officers to wear body cameras and marked police vehicles to have dashboard cameras. It would also require the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study on federal police officers' training, vehicle pursuits, use of force and interaction with citizens. On November 17, 2017, Bijan Ghaisar was fatally shot in his car by uniformed U.S. Park Police officers in Fairfax County, Virginia, after a vehicle pursuit on the George Washington Memorial Parkway. Video of this shooting only became available through a camera in a Fairfax County Police Department patrol car that was providing backup. Had it not been for that footage, which was recorded and released by that local police department, the public would not have had access to the circumstances surrounding Mr. Ghaisar's death. Moreover, the footage revealed concerns about the Park Police's pursuit and engagement policies. Body-worn and dashboard cameras for federal law enforcement officers are particularly important for the officers stationed in the nation's capital, where Park Police and the uniformed division of the U.S. Secret Service have full local police powers. Many other federal police also have local police powers near their respective agency buildings in the District. Cameras can increase transparency for individual interactions with police, strengthen public trust and even deter future criminal behavior. For example, when criminals know that they are being recorded by a dashboard camera, they may be less likely to flee the scene of a traffic accident because they realize that their license plate will be documented. Criminals may also be less likely to batter an officer because the recording may be used as evidence. On the other hand, officers will also be less likely to commit offenses for the same reason. Body-worn and dashboard cameras can also be used to train current and future officers more effectively in best and worst practices. An increasing number of local law enforcement officers, including those in the District of Columbia, are wearing body cameras and using dashboard cameras. It is clear that both law enforcement and the public would benefit from federal officers following suit to increase transparency and maintain public trust. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduced the Commission of Fine Arts District of Columbia Home Rule Act. This bill is necessary to prohibit the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) from exercising authority over non-federal property in the District of Columbia. Under presidential executive orders (EOs) and federal law, the CFA has review authority for D.C.-owned parks and buildings, as well as certain private land in D.C. Under the relevant EOs, CFA has review authority for the design of D.C.-owned parks and buildings. Under the Shipstead-Luce Act, CFA has review authority for the design of private buildings in the District ``adjacent to public buildings and grounds of major importance,'' such as Rock Creek Park and the Potomac riverfront. Under the Old Georgetown Act, the CFA has review authority for the design of private buildings in the part of Georgetown referred to as ``Old Georgetown'' in the act. The members of the CFA are appointed by the President. The federal government, including the CFA, has no business in local land-use policies and decisions. Not only is the federal government's authority over D.C. buildings and private property anti-democratic, it also delays and increases the cost of public and private development in the District. This is an important step to increase home rule for the District, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduced the National Capital Planning Commission District of Columbia Home Rule Act. This bill would remove the authority of the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) to review or approve the development of District of Columbia-owned land. This bill would also remove the requirement that the Mayor of the District get NCPC's approval before selling D.C.-owned real estate, and would allow D.C. agencies to transfer jurisdiction over District-owned land among themselves without NCPC's approval. Under federal law, the development of District-owned public buildings, including the location, height, bulk, number of stories and size of such buildings, in the ``central area'' is subject to NCPC approval. The District is required to consult with NCPC on its buildings outside the central area, but NCPC has only advisory authority in those areas. The central area is defined by the concurrent action of NCPC and the D.C. Council, and currently consists of the Downtown and Shaw Urban Renewal Areas. This authority is unnecessary, as shown by the virtual absence of its use to disapprove sales or development. This latent authority of the federal government should not be able to slow or block the development of District-owned land, or add to the cost of development. The District is not a federal agency and should not be treated any differently by federal law than other local jurisdictions, where local development proceeds without federal interference. NCPC consists of 12 members, three appointed by the President, two appointed by the Mayor, the Mayor, the Chair of the D.C. Council, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of General Services, and the Chairs of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. This bill is one more important step to increase home rule for the District, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the Washington Area Women's Foundation (Foundation) and its Leadership Luncheon taking place on October 30, 2018, in Washington, D.C., and in recognizing the women and girls of color this organization supports. The Foundation mobilizes the community to ensure that economically vulnerable women and girls in the Washington region have the resources they need to thrive. Since 1998, the Foundation has worked to transform the lives of women and girls in the Washington region through research, grants and advocacy. The Foundation has provided more than $12 million in grants to more than 170 community-based organizations in the Washington region. The Foundation Leadership Luncheon has previously raised more than $860,000 for women and girls of color and for local organizations. As the Washington region's only public foundation specifically committed to investing in women and girls, the Foundation works to create economic opportunities that have positive ripple effects across society and open doors to progress. An open door can change a woman's life and the lives of those around her. Not all doors are open to all women. That is why we will not rest until all women, especially young women and girls of color, have equal access to economic security, safety and opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the Washington Area Women's Foundation for its continued support of women and girls of color in the Washington region.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Robert ``Bobby'' Dean Hooks, a native of the District of Columbia, for his lifetime of empowering African Americans in the arts and for his contributions to race relations in the District. Robert Hooks' lifelong passion for theater began at the age of nine with his first play, The Pirates of Penzance. He later honed his stagecraft at West Philadelphia High in classical works by playwrights such as William Shakespeare and Samuel Beckett. In 1959, Mr. Hooks pursued acting professionally in New York City with works such as Lorraine Hansberry's A Raisin in the Sun and LeRoi Jones/Amiri Baraka's Dutchman in his repertoire. Mr. Hooks simultaneously launched his award-winning television career with his groundbreaking role as the first African American lead on the original N.Y.P.D. series. He is recognized for his over 100 roles in film and television in a career that spanned over 40 years. During his time in New York City, Mr. Hooks also started the Group Theater Workshop and the Negro Ensemble Company, both of which offered free training in the arts to underprivileged New York City youth. Following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mr. Hooks returned to the city of his birth--a move he made after meeting with radio host Petey Greene and then-City Administrator Walter E. Washington about the riots of 1968, which had engulfed the District. In 1970, Mr. Hooks unveiled his plans for the DC Black Repertory Company, an all-black theater company in the District, as part of a plan to harness what he believed to be the socially transformative power of theater. Mr. Hooks executed his plan in partnership with D.C.-area black theater professionals and students at Howard University. The DC Black Repertory Company directly contributed to reducing community tensions during those tumultuous times. The group produced more than 20 plays, telling black stories that had not been told. The DC Black Repertory Company was dissolved in 1976, but its legacy continues through The Rep, Inc. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Robert Hooks for his lasting artistic and social contributions to the African American community and to the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in recognizing Tristan Re Shar Breaux, who has served as my District Director for the last four years. During this time, Tristan has proven himself to be a committed and valuable member of my staff. He was dedicated to the work that our office provides to our more than 700,000 residents. On September 30th, Tristan departed my office to serve as the new Director of Policy for the National Housing Conference. Tristan's passion for economic development, affordable housing, and fair investment in our low-income communities will be an asset to the organization and the country. His work ethic, humor, intelligence and compassion will surely be missed by his colleagues, the residents of the District of Columbia and especially my office. Tristan, a native of Queens, New York, adopted D.C. upon his arrival. After serving the House Budget Committee; the United States Senate; various local, state and federal elected officials in Virginia, Tristan first joined my office as my Events Coordinator and led the development of my Black Men & Boys Commission & Caucus. His persistence to get the job done and his gracious demeanor made Tristan a pleasure to be around and work with. Tristan's presence in my office and in the city will surely be missed and I wish him all the best in his future endeavors. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Tristan R. Breaux for his outstanding service to the House of Representatives, my office and to the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Fairness in Federal Bureau of Prisons Medical Care Act of 2018. This bill would remove the current copay Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) inmates are required to pay to visit a BOP-provided doctor. Under current BOP rules, inmates are required to ``pay a fee for health services of $2.00 per health care visit.'' While $2.00 may seem insignificant, when inmates earn only twelve to forty cents per hour on their work assignments, $2.00 can be substantial. That money could better be used to pay child support or for the cost of necessities. Moreover, while copays can discourage unnecessary appointments, we should be encouraging inmates to seek medical care before conditions become worse and more expensive for taxpayers. Preventative care is much less expensive for the federal government than costly treatment that could have been avoided by a simple doctor's visit earlier in the process. Under current BOP rules, if an inmate is found responsible through the Disciplinary Hearing Process of having caused another inmate's injury that required a medical visit, the offending inmate is required to pay the $2.00 copay for the injured inmate's visit. That rule would not change under my bill. Removing this unnecessary copay would allow inmates to see a doctor and receive the medical treatment they need, and will likely save the federal government money in the long run. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Public-Private Partnerships Home Rule Act. This bill would clarify the District of Columbia's authority to enter into public-private partnerships (P3s), like other jurisdictions in the United States. This bill makes it clear that the federal Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA), which uniquely applies to the District, does not prohibit the District from entering into P3s. This bill provides legal certainty that the District may enter into multi-year contracts to design, construct, improve, maintain, operate, manage and/or finance projects procured pursuant to a local D.C. law, the Public-Private Partnership Act of 2014. The District recently began the procurement process for its first-ever P3s: rehabilitating the Metropolitan Police Department headquarters (Henry J. Daly Building) and modernizing streetlights. Federal law potentially limits the authority of only one jurisdiction, the District of Columbia, to enter into P3s. The federal government, many states and other countries have used P3 s. There is no reason that the District should not be able to take advantage of this option. Among other benefits, P3s will free up District funds for pressing needs, such as education and health care, that would otherwise be spent on infrastructure. The federal ADA prohibits the federal and D.C. governments from obligating or expending funds in advance or in excess of an appropriation. If the District could use P3s, it would not have to appropriate all the funds upfront, freeing up funds for the District to spend on other matters. An ADA violation may occur if the District terminates a P3 contract. Under P3 contracts, the District would make payments on an annual basis over the life of a contract, and the District would appropriate the funds for such payments annually. However, upon termination, the District would have to pay all the costs incurred up to that point, but would not yet have appropriated all the funds for such payments, potentially causing an ADA violation. Under D.C. law, a `public-private partnership' means the method in the District for delivering a qualified project using a long- term, performance-based agreement between a public entity and a private entity or entities where appropriate risks and benefits can be allocated in a cost-effective manner between the public and private entities in which: (A) A private entity performs functions normally undertaken by the government, but the public entity remains ultimately accountable for the qualified project and its public function; and (B) The District may retain ownership or control in the project asset and the private entity may be given additional decision-making rights in determining how the asset is financed, developed, constructed, operated, and maintained over its life cycle. This bill is an important step to increase home rule for the District, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, it is probably appropriate that you will be hearing on this last full day before the midterms about statehood for the District of Columbia. I am going to speak about why that is the appropriate way for us to go into midterms, as I represent 700,000 Americans who are number one--please remember this number--number one in taxes paid to support the Federal Government, but also have the distinction of having no final vote on this House floor and having no representation in the Senate of the United States. It is very clear--if you want a history lesson, I am not going to offer that lesson in the time allotted to me this afternoon--but it is absolutely clear that the Framers and the Founders of our country did not go to war with the slogan of ``Taxation Without Representation'' in order to allow that slogan to apply everywhere but in their Nation's Capital. For that reason, we want to thank the Democrats, almost the full caucus, who have already become cosponsors of the D.C. statehood bill. I hasten to add that I do not yet have my Republican friends. I believe that will occur. Meanwhile, Democrats have to plow ahead. I must thank my colleagues for the support they have given me, because we are very close to 100 percent here in the House on our DC statehood bill. I have to offer my thanks as well to Senator Tom Carper, because he is the lead sponsor in the Senate, and he has gotten more than 60 percent of the Democrats in the Senate to support D.C. statehood. If I could mention the last Democrat before we go home--and there will still be time before the end of this session for the few who remain off the bill--I do want to thank Eric Swalwell, because he is the last one before we go home. I had sent out a message: Don't go home without signing for D.C. statehood. He heard that message. There will be a few stragglers. I mention stragglers because when I meet people who aren't on the bill, they say: Oh, my goodness, I thought I was on the bill. So that doesn't mean that because we don't have 100 percent, we can't get 100 percent. It just means Members overlook it and haven't yet come onto the bill. So we will get to you before the end of the 115th Congress. I also want to explain, particularly since we don't have Republican cosponsors yet, that signing onto the bill is going to help the District of Columbia, in any case, because we are the first to concede, with no Republican sponsors yet, that D.C. statehood is an uphill climb. I am here today to say we are prepared to make that climb. I think we are showing that, as I so indicate. Getting cosponsors is going to help us in the next Congress. We are almost sure it is going to help us to get what the Congress can give us now, even without statehood, as more people awaken to the injustice of Americans who don't have democratic representation--a small ``d''--in their Congress. It is going to help us get incrementally to statehood. For example, the District's local laws, even its final budget raised entirely in the District of Columbia, have to come here and be signed off by the Congress. That is an insult to us, frankly. Most Members aren't interested, don't know anything about DC's local laws or budgets. A waste of time. That is the kind of thing that, even without statehood, I think we can get in the short run and getting more cosponsors for statehood can only help us get that. I do want to mention what my colleagues already know. There is not a poll, not a single poll, that does not show that Democrats will, in fact, be in the majority in the next Congress. That means, at the very least, the uphill climb will begin, even if statehood is not around the corner. If ever there was an incentive for District residents to keep going in the streets, going around the Congress to get statehood co-sponsors, this chart shows it. This chart illustrates what I have just said about the District of Columbia's paying the highest Federal taxes in the United States. If you live in California, to name a big State, if you live in New York--and I can go down the line--we do have a chart that shows where each State ranks. They are all beneath the District of Columbia. What am I talking about? Almost $12,000 per resident in taxes paid by the people I represent to support the government that does not give them full representation. I don't have all the States listed here, but you can see how the line goes down until it gets to Mississippi, which has the lowest Federal taxes, whose citizens pay the lowest Federal taxes in the United States. Yet Mississippi has two Senators, I don't remember how many Representatives, paying far lower taxes to support the Federal Government than the Americans I represent, yet they have full representation in the House and the Senate. So, some may say, well, you've got 700,000 residents. Is that a lot of people? It is more residents than two of the States. Vermont and Wyoming each has one Representative, just like D.C., except that Representative can vote on this floor, and two Senators. But Vermont and Wyoming are representative of about seven States in the United States that have about the same number of residents as the District of Columbia. I picked these two out only because they rank below DC. We are equal in population or near equal in population to seven States. Perhaps it can be understood when you see that ranking, not to mention the ranking on per capita taxes, why we seek statehood for the District of Columbia. This is not the first time I have sought statehood. I did so when I first came to the Congress. In 1993, I got the first and only vote on statehood. Let me tell you the results of that vote and why it is important that that threshold has been laid. I was new to the House, and even the most fervent advocates for statehood did not predict that the vote would be 153 for statehood, 277 against. So I come, candidly, to tell you that we have gone on the floor for statehood before, and we didn't get it. Indeed, only 40 percent of the Democrats supported us. How could that be when you say, Congresswoman Norton, that you have almost all of the Democrats now on the bill? The difference, of course, is that it was a very different Congress. For 40 years, the Democrats had control of the Congress, and that was in no small part because of Southern Democrats. By the way, Southern Democrats voted with the District on many, many bills. And in many ways, I would welcome them back. But, of course, they were more conservative Democrats than the Democrats now in the House. Democrats fully recognize that when we get the majority--and I say ``when'' and not ``if,'' because I fully expect we will have the majority in the next Congress--that there will be some Democrats who are more conservative than I am and perhaps than the average Member of the House, and that is to be expected, if you want to be in the majority. So I am not lamenting that we got only 40 percent in that first and only statehood vote. I am trying to make the case how votes come and why they come. We were very proud of that vote, because it was many more than had been predicted. There was dancing in the House galleries up there because the vote came far above what the press was predicting the District was going to get and what even the District and its residents were predicting. I hasten to add that, as I have already shown, the District is already a State in all but name and representation in this Congress. For example, when time comes for appropriation, unlike the territories--and I do want to distinguish us from the territories--they are our sisters in many ways, but Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the rest don't pay Federal income taxes, so note that difference. Some of them--in fact, almost none of them have come forward to request statehood. There is now some interest in statehood by Puerto Rico. But the reason that most of the territories don't come forward and ask for statehood is very clear. There is a quid pro quo for them. In exchange for not paying Federal taxes, they don't have the votes in Congress. We pay Federal taxes, and we have no vote in Congress, making us unique in the union. So, my friends, or at least virtually all my friends, in the territories don't even ask for statehood. Sometimes they say, yes, we want statehood, but they understand that, for them, it is more difficult. It is certainly true that, this late in the history of the United States, one has to wonder why the word ``territory'' is there and to hope for equality for the residents of the territories. That has to be up to them, so I don't come here to speak for them. I only want for them to be treated equally with other Americans. When I say the District is already a State in ways that many count as States, I even point to how the House does its appropriation. The District gets a per capita appropriation, in other words, based on our population. So if our population is 700,000, we will get the same as others who have that population. It is not true for the territories. Their basic complaint is that they do get Federal funding, but they don't get the per capita funding that States get. There is a reason D.C. gets that per capita funding. It is because of tax funding we give to support our government. So the government has recognized the District's contributions in some ways. It simply has not given us the representation that a democratic country owes all its citizens. Some may believe that the reason the District does not have statehood is that it needs help from the Federal Government. Far from it. It is the District that helps the Federal Government because of the strength of the city's local economy. That local economy outstrips in its strength many of the local economies of the States. For example, the District's own local budget is more than $12 billion. That is larger than the budget of 12 States that already have full representation in this Congress. These days it is hard to find a sizable surplus in the States, but the District's surplus is almost $200 billion. That is money that the District puts away in taxes and other revenue it gets, mostly from its own citizens. That would make it, just that surplus, the envy of the country. The District's per capita income is higher than the per capita income of any State. This is not a poor city asking for help from the Federal Government. This is a city that helps the Federal Government with taxes paid without representation. That taxation without representation is, of course, the largest grievance. But it is also true that Republicans, who fancy themselves the local control party in the Congress, try their very best here in the House and in the Senate to take away what home rule or self- government that the District now has. The District, in 1974, after almost 100 years, got the right to elect its own Mayor and city council. The last time it had that right, Republicans were in charge right after the Civil War when the Republicans gave the District what we call home rule. It is Democrats who took away that local self-government. It is the Democrats, my party, who were in charge most of the years we were without local government, that took it away. Many of them were more conservative or Southern Democrats. But there is no escaping that they were Democrats, and they were often in control of this House. So, Republicans who come to this floor on both sides to argue even against Federal intervention even that is authorized by the Constitution and by Federal law. Isn't it amazing that the party of local control would persistently interfere with the local control that the District of Columbia has had since 1973, but that is what we see. I just want to cite not all but to give examples of some of this interference and to indicate why I think this interference takes place, because it doesn't take place as to the laws of the District of Columbia. What this does mean is that the Congress uses the fact that the District does not have statehood to intrude itself to try to overturn some laws in the District of Columbia that they happen to disagree with. Now, the District of Columbia is a big city. Like most big cities, even within the States, it is more progressive than other parts of our country. So, although they have nothing to gain, Republicans try to make political points back home by intruding and trying to take away laws passed by the D.C. Council. I want to give examples of some of those laws and even to indicate some of the Members who helped me get rid of the attempts to overturn our laws. For example, our laws that have legalized recreational marijuana, that makes D.C. one of nine jurisdictions. Now, that is controversial, but the Congress has done nothing about those States that have departed from Federal law and legalized marijuana. The Republican Congress has done nothing about it. But each and every Congress, the Congress keeps the District of Columbia from commercializing marijuana. I say ``commercializing'' because those States are now taxing marijuana. Marijuana is consumed everywhere in the United States. Nobody gets arrested for it anymore. So these States have simply said, ``What is pro forma law shall be law, and we will tax marijuana.'' Well, the District of Columbia passed a law to legalize marijuana, and Republicans made an attempt to undermine that law, simply erase it. They were not very smart in the way they did it, and, thus, 2 ounces of marijuana is still legal to possess in the District of Columbia. And it is interesting that, as marijuana laws have become more widespread in the United States, Republicans have not come back and attempted, yet again, to overturn our marijuana law. The reason that the District was adamant about our marijuana law is the enormous disparities between who got arrested for marijuana offenses, which are misdemeanors but give you a record. They turned out to be largely African Americans. So we did not have the usual recreational marijuana reason for wanting to legalize marijuana. We had an additional reason of great importance to our city. Republicans failed to overturn the law, but they left us without the ability to commercialize marijuana, and look what that has done. That means that as The Washington Post reported--and we call them ``riders.'' ``This amendment is a ``license,'' quoting a drug dealer, for me to print money.'' Some call it the ``Drug Dealer Protection Act'' because, with no ability to commercialize marijuana, the drug dealers have not gone out of business here as they have in the States that have legalized and commercialized marijuana. I want to name just a few other examples. We have a bill. Only one State--and two other localities have similar bills. It is called the ``Reproductive Health Nondiscrimination Act.'' It says that you can't discriminate against one of your own employees or families based on the reproductive health decisions they make. The Republicans are deep into the business of individuals by looking at such matters. For example, firing or declining to hire a woman for having had an abortion, even if it was due to rape--and maybe that is why they knew about it in the first place because I don't understand how you could even know about such private business--or declining to hire a woman for using in vitro fertilization. Now, the reason that you have the District of Columbia and two other cities with similar laws is there have been some matters brought to the attention of their local legislature. This is an amendment, unlike the marijuana commercialization law, that I have been able to get removed, but it is an example of one that continues to come back. One of the most troubling is the District's abortion law. Mr. Speaker, 17 States use their own local funds on abortion for poor women. Federal funds for abortions have long been barred by the Congress, so these 17 States spend their own funds, except for the District of Columbia, which to this day cannot do so. There is a local nonprofit organization which helps women because of this amendment, but you can see what I mean about intruding in the most private of affairs. I am not asking people to support the choices made by the District of Columbia. I am certainly not asking the Congress to do that. I am asking Congress to get out of our lives, to give us equality by our own citizens in choosing our laws, however controversial. Another example that is controversial--and I point this out because our laws sometimes are controversial and because other States have passed similarly controversial laws. It is called, ``D.C.'s Death with Dignity Act.'' The Congress has tried to bar, unsuccessfully, the District law that is law in six other States that allows self-administered lethal medication for people who have 6 months to live and who doctors have said are in such terrible pain or misery that these people, not the doctors, should be allowed to give themselves a lethal medication. Talking about a private matter. I don't know where most Americans stand on this. I am told that most approve it, by the way. But I know where the people I represent stand, and I know it is up to them and only them, and it offers another reason why we fight for statehood. Look, I have been able to keep this attempt to take away our law, our D.C. Death with Dignity Law from, in fact, becoming law. But it does give you an indication of the kind of continual fight that has to be made here for the District of Columbia, and this is in addition for all the work that I, like other Members, have to do on the national bills, the bills that are legitimately introduced in this House. I suppose at least one more ought to be mentioned. How could I not? That is, the District has a local budget autonomy law. Republicans tried to abolish it. It gives the District the ability to have its local law go into effect without coming here to the Congress where they do nothing about it except try to use it as a bill allowing them to attach what we call ``riders.'' If you want to do an amendment, there has to be a bill. So they want our budget over here so that they can do amendments like the one I just discussed on marijuana. Well, we want to get rid of that by giving the District budget autonomy so that its local laws will not have to come here in the first place. The Congress has tried to overturn the budget autonomy law and has been unsuccessful. The District went to court. The court said our local budget autonomy law was, in fact, constitutional and legal. Although the Congress has not overturned it--and we are grateful for that--the Congress does pass a law saying the District's local budget is now law anyway. So you see how redundant that is? They don't do anything about it, but they pass a provision and say, ``We made it law. DC says it is already law.'' But, you see, until we get to the point where they don't have anything to say about our local budget, we will not be the equal of the States. What makes all of this interference particularly painful to the District of Columbia is how the District is viewed by those who have no axe to grind, and the best examples of those would be the rating agencies. For example, Moody's has given the District a AAA rating. I would like to quote what Moody's says about the District of Columbia and its economy and how its government is run. ``The dynamism of the District's economy has led to the largest population in 40 years and strong growth in the tax base. Financial governance''--I repeat the words--``Financial governance is exemplary. Reserves are robust.'' Talking about people who have nothing to gain except seeing it as the data reports it. That was Moody's speaking about how the District's financial governance rates. Let me quote Standard & Poor's. Here is what Standard & Poor's has to say. This is very important because it is a critique, in effect, of this Congress. By the way, they have given DC a AAA rating. ``We continue to have concerns about the role of the Federal Government in future District budgets. We view this as an ongoing factor that has a negative effect on the District's finances and as a slight offset to the District's otherwise very strong management practices.'' In effect, what Standard & Poor's is saying is it costs the District money--money in how the District pays--and I use that word advisedly-- the District pays in dollars and cents because of congressional interference. And how the Congress interferes affects how investors view the District's economy. It is a price to be paid, literally, in dollars and cents by the residents of the District of Columbia. Now, I do not want to be misunderstood. I do not stand here and say, if you don't give us statehood, there is nothing we can do. But I do want to illustrate what we have to do. Yes, we have been successful sometimes in being treated equally with the States. For example, just look at last year. We had to defeat 15 attempts to overturn the District's local laws. There were three attempts that we had to defeat to eliminate the District's gun safety laws. This is the District of Columbia, where there are Members of the House and Senate, like Senator Marco Rubio, who continues to put in a bill that would eliminate every single gun law in the District of Columbia. Imagine what that would mean in the Nation's Capital here, where some of the most controversial figures in the country and the world are seen on our streets, in our restaurants, and public places, if anybody can come in with a gun. Well, we have tight gun laws in this town. I have had to fight very hard, and, yes, we have succeeded even without statehood. That is no argument against statehood. That reinforces the notion that we need statehood because those things should not have happened, should not have taken my time on the floor or the time of residents to come here to say, please, don't do this to us. There is another favorite of the Republicans: to put private school vouchers on the District of Columbia. Let me indicate why that is particularly outrageous. The District of Columbia does, in fact, have its public school system, and it has an almost equal number of students in what are called charter schools, which are not a part of the D.C. public schools. DC has done that on their own. When the education bill comes before the Congress, and a national charter school bill is, in fact, on the floor, some Members of Congress vote against charter schools while others favor them, except there are Members who don't have charter schools. We have charter schools. We have improved our public schools as well, but they are our public schools. They are paid for by our tax dollars. However, there is always an education bill that has private school vouchers in it that we very much oppose private school vouchers because the jurisdiction has no control on how well the children are even doing in those schools. We do have that kind of control over how well children are doing in charter schools and in public schools. But if they go to any private schools--and some of these private schools are fly-by-night schools, but even those that are not are private and, therefore, not subject to regulation and oversight. So, when vouchers are a part of the education bill that comes before us every few years, vouchers for schools in the United States, that bill is voted down every time. So that makes the District of Columbia the only jurisdiction that does have private school vouchers; and we do have school vouchers, but they are for a very small number of students because most students choose our charter schools and our public schools. As I speak, I hope I will be successful. I believe I will be successful again in getting D.C. tuition access grants. Now, DC is unusual because the District does not have a university system. It simply has one public university. I have been able to get tuition assistance grants so that our youngsters go to universities and colleges in every State, all 50 States. And it is interesting, I do have a lot of support for this bill because there is not a Member that doesn't have D.C. students going to college in their States. The Federal Government pays for the difference between what the student pays and the higher cost that would otherwise be charged as out-of-state tuition, DC students pay the same in-state tuition, and that has been a help. And it is help from the Federal Government, and it is supported by many Members in this Congress who know that their own public universities have benefited from it. I don't maintain that we don't get anything from the Federal Government. I have already indicated that we get the same per capita as the states, and I don't indicate that if I don't have statehood I can't get any bills passed. People will come to the District of Columbia today and they will find, on both waterfronts, the Southeast waterfront, the Southwest waterfront--the Southeast waterfront is called Capital Riverfront; the Southwest waterfront, The Wharf. There are, essentially, whole new neighborhoods on those waterfronts. And, yes, I got those without statehood. But I dare Republicans to say, well, since you can get things like that for your District without statehood, what are you crying about? I am crying about taxes without representation is what I am crying about. Yes, I know we can get funds, for example, for things my legislation for the Arlington Memorial Bridge, which brings people from the south to the Nation's Capital. Yes, I am grateful that, even in a Republican Congress, I have been able to get the Wharf bill passed. I have been able to get the Southeast waterfront bill, or Capital Riverfront as it is called, passed, that we got money for the Arlington Memorial Bridge. And I bring those up because I don't want to hear, well, if you are able to get things done, what is your problem? My problem is what I have been discussing here. It is undoing what our city has done, undemocratically, and it is failure to give us the same representation in the Congress of the United States as every other taxpaying American. Yes, sometimes I have to do the very unusual. There is a tax bill, for example, that just went through here. It is interesting to note it is not very popular with the American people, and I certainly was against it. I couldn't vote for it or against it. But if there is a bill going through here and I can find a way to get my District in it, I am going to try and get in it. So there are parts of this bill that promote incentives and investment in some of our low- income parts of the city, that promote private and affordable housing in the District of Columbia, so I am in the tax bill. But I opposed the tax bill. In that way, I am like many other Democrats who voted ``no'' on this floor but, yet, tried to get in the bill and did get in the bill. That is how the Congress works. Finally, nothing makes the case for D.C. statehood better than this chart showing the District war casualties in the 20th century when we fought our major wars: in World War I, more casualties than three States. Korean War, by that time it had gone up to more casualties than 8 States. By World War II, we were seeing more casualties than four States. Remember, the District is smaller than most States. And the Vietnam War, perhaps the very worst, more casualties than 10 States. Since then, we have eliminated the draft, but this chart and these tombstones make the best case for equal treatment for the residents of the District of Columbia. Even as I speak, the residents of this city have volunteered and serve in a volunteer army. These statistics illustrate the United States when we had a draft. So we don't have a draft now, and, yet, District residents are found in every part of the country--forgive me--every part of the world where our troops are. It is time that our country recognized our city and its residents and, particularly, those who now serve, those who served before them, and those who have died in service of their country. We are now in the 21st century. It seems impossible we have gotten here: 217 years since the District of Columbia has been the Nation's Capital; 217 years of inequality in your own country; 217 years of paying taxes without representation; 217 years of going to war without benefit of equal treatment even by those who served. This is why, for those reasons, the residents, the American citizens I represent, cannot possibly give up on seeking equal treatment: first, by perfecting what is called home rule, or self-government; but certainly, by becoming a State like every other State, by no longer being treated, as Frederick Douglass said, as aliens, not citizens, but subjects. We are Americans. That is why we insist that the American citizens in the District of Columbia become citizens of the 51st State of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, although the Republican Senate has refused the customary FBI investigation into allegations against Judge Kavanaugh by Dr. Ford and others, there is evidence that should be weighed. Dr. Ford is not only willing to offer sworn testimony at the hearing, she has requested an FBI investigation with the required FBI questioning under penalty of perjury. Judge Kavanaugh is an expert on all our legal processes. Why hasn't he asked for the standard FBI investigation? Moreover, apparently understanding the seriousness of her allegations, Dr. Ford has also taken the unusual step of being polygraphed. A lie detector test is not required, although law enforcement sometimes requests it. It would be a fair question for Senators to ask Judge Kavanaugh why he did not request an FBI investigation and whether he would take a polygraph test, too.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Vivian Lee Battle Sims for her lifetime of work in education and for her longstanding contributions to the communities in which she has resided throughout her life. Vivian Sims was born and raised in New York City, where she graduated from Girls' High School in Brooklyn, a highly regarded institution of the public school system. She went on to earn both her bachelor's and master's degrees at Fisk University in Nashville, Tennessee. She also attended Columbia University, Tennessee State University, Middle Tennessee State University, Columbia State Community College and the Tennessee Technology Center at Pulaski. Vivian Sims returned to school at the age of 85 to begin work on a doctorate at Tennessee State University. She began her career in education as an art teacher in 1950 at Nashville city schools, eventually moving on to be art supervisor for Metro Nashville Public Schools' District 3 and Giles County's elementary schools. She served as the first high school art teacher at Giles County High School from 1976 to 1985, as Assistant Principal for Pulaski Elementary School from 1985 to 1991 and was the first African American woman principal at Southside Elementary School before her retirement in 1997. During her career as an educator that spanned over 47 years, Vivian Sims participated in the Fulbright Teacher Exchange and was a finalist for Tennessee Teacher of the Year. She also served as president of the Giles County Schools Teachers Association and on the Board of Directors for the Tennessee Education Association, among other national, state and local organizations. In addition to her work in public schools, Vivian Sims has always been an active member of her community. Some of these community activities include her work for Giles County Senior Citizens, Inc., the Community Council for the Adult Developmentally Handicapped, the Community Development Corporation of North Pulsaki, Help A Talented Student (HATS), the Pulaski Boys and Girls Club and the Pulaski Area Vocational-Technical School. My pride in Vivian is also personal because she is my cousin. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Vivian Lee Battle Sims for her outstanding contributions to education and the arts, as well as for her enduring service and attention to the greater Tennessee community.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Improvement Act of 2018. This bill would further encourage the development of important vaccines by doubling the maximum number of special masters the Court of Federal Claims can assign to vaccine cases. Vaccines are a vitally important component of our public health system. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (``Program'') was created by Congress in 1988 so that individuals or families of individuals injured by childhood vaccines could receive financial compensation. This ``no-fault'' system caps the amount of compensation allowed under the Program for vaccine-related injuries, thus meeting the dual goals of encouraging the further development of vaccines and compensating anyone who is injured by them. The Program was also designed to accelerate the compensation process so that plaintiffs would not have to undergo a full trial before receiving damages that could potentially be used to address their injuries. However, as the number of vaccines covered under the Program has increased, so, too, has the number of cases brought before the court and the special masters. The number of petitions filed has increased from 24 in fiscal year 1988 to 1,120 in fiscal year 2016. Congress capped the number of special masters at eight when it first authorized the Program, and has not increased it since, despite the increased number of covered vaccines and petitions filed. To meet the demand caused by the increased number of these complex cases, my bill would increase the maximum number of special masters allowed to 16. Moreover, the court may reduce the number of special masters should the number of cases drop, as this is a statutory ceiling, not a floor. This is an important measure to ensure compensation when necessary and further important medical development. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Combating Implicit Bias in Education Act. My bill would create a $25 million grant program for schools to train teachers, principals and other personnel on implicit bias, including with respect to actual or perceived race, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), disability, ethnicity and socioeconomic status. The Department of Education's Civil Rights Data Collection for the 2015-2016 school year found that students of color, males and those with disabilities received far more severe and frequent punishment than white, female and non-disabled students. Despite the findings of this report, the Trump Administration and U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos are considering eliminating the Obama Administration's guidance seeking to curb exclusionary discipline. Students experiencing implicit bias and even outright discrimination face far greater expulsion and suspension rates, fueling the school-to-prison pipeline and widening the student achievement gap. The bill aims to reduce the effect of implicit bias on school discipline, academic achievement and academic attainment through research-based training for education personnel. Providing teachers and school officials with training could help close the achievement gap and reduce suspensions and expulsions. Under my bill, the Institute of Education Sciences under the Department of Education is tasked with evaluating and reporting on the effectiveness of the training. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, because of our diversity of interests and constituents, Congress is an inherently volatile body. For stability, the Nation typically looks to the President, the one official elected nationwide. This President has abdicated his role as a unifying figure. Instead, he daily takes radically disconcerting actions, alarming residents who do not know what to expect from 1 day to the next. The Republican majority does not even try to help, so, instead, Trump's own appointees now seek to reassure the public and our allies that someone on the inside is trying to prevent all-out chaos. Those who want the author of the uncontradicted New York Times op-ed to resign need to explain how that would quell the undeniable chaos in the administration or reassure the American public that responsible officials are looking out for them.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend, Representative Barbara Lee from California, who has the great honor of serving in the seat that Ron held. And she has that honor because of her work with Ron and because those who lived in his district understood that Ron did not serve them alone. I think that for Barbara Lee to have risen from intern to chief of staff to Ron Dellums says everything about her service in the Congress. She is just the right person to be leading this special honor for our good friend, the dapper, the brilliant, Ron Dellums. Ms. Lee shows us that Ron had an eye for talent, and I thank her for sharing that talent now with the Nation. It is true that my district and I had a special relationship with Ron Dellums; and, therefore, a special love. Because for 14 years, he chaired the old District of Columbia Committee, which he helped me get rid of, understanding that the District deserved equality with other districts. Yet, I have to say how fortunate we were that Ron chose to use one of his committee seats for the District of Columbia. Why would Ron Dellums do that? There is not a vote in the District of Columbia for Ron Dellums--much as people would have loved to vote for him--but there wasn't a single vote because he didn't live in the District of Columbia. This was such an unselfish human being. He went where he thought he was needed. And I do need to tell you how unusual that is, because most Members choose their committees, and this applies to his choice of the Armed Services Committee, as well as the District Committee. You choose your committee because it allows you to bring home something to your constituents, and I am the perfect example. I have chosen committees which have helped me rebuild entire sections of the District of Columbia, the Wharf, or the Southwest Waterfront, the Southeast Waterfront, and other sections of the city. That is how most of us operate. Well, let me tell you something: It is hard to bring home peace. Yet, that is why Ron Dellums chose to serve on the Armed Services Committee, as he unselfishly served on the District Committee. I will have a word to say about that--it was because he could not bear to see any Americans treated as less than full American citizens. I must note, though, because I don't want to leave you with a sense, a parochial sense of Ron Dellums, or think I am just here because of what he did for my district. That would be reason enough for me to be here, but I am here to note the uniqueness of Ron Dellums as a Member of Congress, because not before, and not since, has there been a Member like Ron Dellums. As a lawyer, I am going to prove this point. I hope you will agree before I sit down. First of all, here was a Marine Corps vet--a pretty tough branch of the armed services--and, of course, this gave Ron special credibility when he became the leader of antiwar efforts in the Congress of the United States. Whether House or Senate, this was the leader of antiwar efforts when we were in Vietnam and when we were in wars since. Never before or since has a Member who opposed most of the mandate of a committee been elected to chair that committee, as Ron was elected to chair the Armed Services Committee. Now, remember, you don't get appointed to chair these committees. You have to earn the respect of your colleagues on the committee so that they want to elect you to chair them. I defy my colleagues to find any other Member of Congress who has gotten elected or could get elected chairman of a committee with a mission they oppose. Ron Dellums was the leading advocate for peace in the Congress, winning the votes of his colleagues to chair the Armed Services Committee, which has, if you will forgive me, little to do with peace. They have to do with preparing for war. I begin there to make you understand what manner of man I am talking about. Now, he didn't just decide when he came to Congress: Wouldn't this be a cute thing to do given where I stand on these issues to chair, to grow up as it were in Congress to chair the Armed Services Committee. He started right where he ended. As a freshman, Ron introduced a resolution calling for an investigation of war crimes, or what he regarded as war crimes in Indochina. Particularly as a freshman, that was refused. So instead of walking away as virtually any Member would, especially a freshman, he said: I am going to call some unofficial hearings on this very subject and he was able to lure some of his colleagues with him, despite many colleagues regarding the introduction of the resolution as an outrage to begin with. Here is a Member of Congress whose reputation for fairness, whose congeniality was such that when time came to elect a chairman, many Republicans as well supported him to become chairman of the Armed Services Committee. The defense establishment that was certainly rattled. What to expect from this man? Well, this is what you got. You got leadership from a man who managed every bill to increase defense funding with great equanimity and fairness, while opposing his own bills. That is what you got. Find yourself that kind of a Member, much less a chairman, today in the Congress of the United States. You got a man who was, in fact, very much for equal rights for gays in the military, but ushered through his committee a ban on gays serving openly in the military regardless. He understood the difference between Ron Dellums the man and Mr. Chairman. That is an important difference. And because Members tend not to understand that difference, they tend not to get elected chair of a committee whose mandate they oppose. I must say, because I was not a Member of Congress at the time of the Free South Africa movement, but, was a leader of that movement, how much Ron was appreciated throughout the country for his leadership as the chief sponsor of the bill that produced sanctions against South Africa for its apartheid policies, and, ultimately, the release of Mandella from prison. Finally, if I may say to my friend from California, a word of special thanks regarding Ron Dellums' service on the District of Columbia Committee. He served on it from the moment he was in Congress, and he chaired the committee for, as I indicated, 14 years. It is interesting, that this was a committee he wanted to eliminate as one of the first supporters for statehood for the District of Columbia when the District of Columbia was just trying to get the local vote, or what we call home rule. Some of his words deserve repeating. For example, he said: ``I am an advocate, not an overseer of District affairs.'' Now, Ron was the committee chairman. He clearly was the overseer. We didn't want that power. He had it. This is how he approached his work as chair of a committee that had nothing to do with his district. This is how he approached giving the District the respect that it deserved. I was not a Member of Congress at the time, but I know that my friend, Walter Fauntleroy, who represented the District at the time, deeply appreciated Ron Dellums, in particular. When I indicate that Ron was for D.C. statehood, you might think, well, you are for D.C. statehood. What do you expect? Remember, we didn't have good home rule then. We didn't get that until 1994, and we were just getting to the point where people understood the inequality of the residents who live in the District of Columbia. But Ron Dellums understood, you have got to advocate for what people deserve, not where they are now in getting what the Congress wants to give them. His service as chair of the District Committee was long ago, it meant everything to the District to have a chairman who loved the District of Columbia as he loved his own city who understood what the District needed and wanted, and who always consulted with the District. Yes, California is far away from the District of Columbia, but notwithstanding the distance, I stand here this evening with the greatest gratitude for the 700,000 people I represent now and for all those who at the time had the great privilege of having Ron as the chair of the District Committee. I stand here to thank Representative Ron Dellums, to let him know he will be forever remembered in our city, and to let him know that he has not been and never will be forgotten by the people of the District of Columbia. My thanks to my good friend for leading this Special Order.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. 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, which other jurisdictions 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 the 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. Mr. Speaker, as the Kavanaugh hearing proceeds, the House gets no say on Supreme Court nominees, but our constituents have much to lose if Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed. As chair of the Congressional Black Caucus' Judicial Nominations Task Force, I have studied Judge Kavanaugh's record closely. African Americans have the most to lose because they, more than other Americans, have advanced their rights through the court. However, most Americans have much to lose, too, as Kavanaugh's record on the Affordable Care Act, criminal justice, and reproductive rights shows. Let the House also note, Kavanaugh's vision of executive power would enhance the authority of the executive at the expense of the other branches of government, including Congress, and, therefore, would pose a special danger to the Constitution's careful balance of power. Brett Kavanaugh does not belong on the Supreme Court.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Lori Yarrish, who passed on August 6, 2018, for her lifetime of outstanding work in the arts and her contributions to the cultural development of the District of Columbia. Lori served as director of the Smithsonian Anacostia Community Museum since December 2017, after having served as its acting director since June 2016. Lori implemented a new mission statement and brought with her an innovative leadership model that transformed the Museum's outreach and collaborative partnerships with the community. Lori was instrumental in revitalization efforts for the Anacostia Community Museum, which recently celebrated its 50th anniversary with the exhibition ``Your Community, Your Story: Celebrating Five Decades of the Anacostia Community Museum.'' Lori embraced and advanced the Museum's unique role in the community and, in October 2017, was named by Washingtonian magazine as one of Washington, D.C.'s most powerful women in the arts. Prior to her work with the Anacostia Community Museum, Lori was with the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service, the Maryland Commission on African American History and Culture's Banneker-Douglass Museum, the National Building Museum, the Capital Children's Museum and the B'nai B'rith Klutznick National Jewish Museum. A classically trained dancer, Lori also served on the board of directors at the New School of Dance and Arts in Washington, D.C. and on the coordinating committee for the Smithsonian American Women's History Initiative. My grief for the loss of Lori is also personal because she was my cousin. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Lori Yarrish on the occasion of her passing and for her lasting contributions to the arts, the Smithsonian, the Anacostia Community Museum and the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the District of Columbia Chief Financial Officer Salary Home Rule Act. This bill would give the District of Columbia the authority to set the pay of the D.C. Chief Financial Officer (CFO). There is no reason the District should not have the authority to set the wage of a local official who is paid with local funds. In 2013, Congress enacted a law that gave the District more authority to set the CFO's pay. However, Congress did not give D.C. full and complete authority over this local matter. This bill would give D.C. the authority to set the CFO's pay as it sees fit. The 2013 law amended the Home Rule Act to change the CFO's pay from a fixed rate of pay that was tied to a federal pay schedule to a maximum allowable pay, or ceiling, tied to a federal pay schedule. The ceiling was and is substantially higher than the fixed rate, but the CFO's pay is now $1,000 below the maximum. I introduced the 2013 bill after a D.C. CFO search committee indicated that the fixed rate of pay was not high enough to attract the best talent needed for this complex and demanding job. The responsibilities of the CFO, a position created by Congress, are unique in the United States. The CFO is extraordinarily powerful and independent. The District cannot obligate or expend funds without the CFO's approval, and the CFO can be terminated only ``for cause.'' The District needs the authority to be able to pay the rate demanded by the market and necessary to retain and attract the best CFOs, especially since the District must compete with the private sector for highly qualified CFOs. This is an important step to increase home rule for the District, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.