Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Kevin J. Keefe for his 31 years of outstanding federal service, including as a civilian attorney for the Department of the Navy (DON) Office of the General Counsel (OGC). In May 1987, Mr. Keefe was first appointed to federal service as an Attorney Advisor with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Office of Review and Appeals, where he remained until 1989. He went on to serve as Assistant Counsel at DON OGC from 1989 to 1995, and as Senior Advisor in the Executive Office for United States Attorneys at the Department of Justice (DOJ) from 1995 to 1998. Mr. Keefe returned to DON OGC in 1998 as Supervisory Associate Counsel for the Strategic Systems Program (SSP), where he spent the last 20 years representing DON in various roles. Kevin J. Keefe quickly established himself for his great foresight in anticipating and evaluating legal issues, particularly in considering potential future implications for the DON. Throughout his tenure, Mr. Keefe earned and maintained the trust of senior leaders at SSP with his superb legal acumen and was well-known for his thorough litigation work. Mr. Keefe has secured numerous favorable decisions from the EEOC and the Merit Systems Protection Board on behalf of DON in his central practice area of civilian personnel law. Moreover, he has assisted the U.S. Attorney's office in representing DON when SSP personnel cases were appealed to the federal District Court or to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In these instances, U.S. attorneys relied on motions and briefs drafted by Mr. Keefe to prevail in federal court. Kevin J. Keefe's achievements have been celebrated throughout his career with a variety of awards for his outstanding work in the federal government. These include the DON Meritorious Civilian Service Award, a DOJ Special Achievement Award, a Letter of Recognition from the Director of SSP and other performance-related accolades. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Kevin J. Keefe, on the occasion of his retirement, for his many years of excellence in federal service.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring the Mamie Johnson Little League for winning the District of Columbia's Little League championship title on July 24, 2018. Only three years since its inception, Mamie Johnson is the first all-African American team to win the Little League championship title in the annual tournament's 31 years in the District. Mamie Johnson won the title game against Capitol Hill Little League, and will move on to compete in the regional tournament, in Bristol, Connecticut, with their sights on the Little League World Series. Keith Barnes, president of the Mamie Johnson Little League, founded the league just four years ago in Ward 7, here in the District of Columbia. He named the team after Mamie ``Peanut'' Johnson, the first female pitcher in the Negro Leagues, who lived and died in D.C. Johnson herself was present to see her namesake Little League make it to the finals in last year's tournament. This year's championship game was played at the Washington Nationals Youth Baseball Academy, located in Fort Dupont. One of the reasons the District had no teams east of the Anacostia River is there was no place to play until recently. The land for the Academy was secured through a federal land transfer from the National Park Service to the District in 2010--an effort in which I was proud to play an essential role. In 2017, Major League Baseball's opening-day rosters had the lowest percentage of black players since 1958. In 2018, that number of 7.1 percent increased to 7.8 percent, or 68 African Americans. This modest increase has been attributed to youth programs such as the Academy's ``YBA Play'' program. At a time when African American participation in America's favorite pastime has been declining, the Mamie Johnson Little League presents a different future for baseball. They have already been an inspiration to kids in the District and have reintroduced an appetite for the sport in young children. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring the Mamie Johnson Little League for their win in the District's Little League championship and for making tournament history as the first all-African American team to take the title.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, as the House recesses, I want to call Members' attention to something I hope they will consider over the recess, this year's record attacks in the form of riders or undemocratic additions to the D.C. appropriation and how that makes the best case for statehood for the District of Columbia. I need to report to the House the remarkable progress we are making on D.C. statehood. We are closing in on 100 percent of Democratic House Members as cosponsors of the D.C. statehood bill. In the Senate, where the District has no representation, we have more than half of the Democratic Senators. Before this session is over, we are striving for 100 percent, certainly, of Democrats in the House and even in the Senate as we go over to the Senate to also make the case without having any representation there. That is why I am so grateful to the Senators who have understood the importance of equality for the 700,000-- equality of citizenship, I should say--for the 700,000 American citizens who live in the Nation's Capital. In the face of that good news on statehood, you would think that there would be applause from the Congress, who sits in the home district of the District of Columbia. But recently, there have been a spate of undemocratic riders, that is, attempts to amend the District's appropriation. What is the District's appropriation doing here? That is the nub of the problem. It shouldn't be here. When I first came to Congress, there were actually hearings held on the D.C. appropriation, but I have been able to make sure that that doesn't happen. Indeed, Congress has no interest in the D.C. appropriation because it is a local budget with funds from only local residents. Not a penny of it is raised in this Congress. To be sure, we are entitled to some funds from the Congress, just like the States. But we are not talking about those funds. We are talking about the local D.C. budget passing through the House and the Senate for no other purpose except to see if somebody in either of those two bodies wants to insert undemocratic amendments, using the DC budget as the vehicle to do it. There are a number of ways to keep that from happening short of statehood, but statehood would be the end of it. I can't decide anything about New York's budget because it is New York's budget and it doesn't have to come here. In the same way, the local budget for the District of Columbia has no business here. It must be that Members who attempt these additions to our appropriation don't have enough to show to their own constituents for what they have accomplished during this Congress, so they look around for something to say, ``I passed this.'' Well, let me be clear. I have been able to keep most of these riders from passing, so I don't know why they keep trying. But as long as they keep trying, they have got someone standing in the doorway of the House to keep these antidemocratic amendments not approved by the residents of the District of Columbia but having everything to do with the District of Columbia from, indeed, passing. And remember, this Member has a vote in committee, which may be the most important vote any Member can have. That is how I have gotten things accomplished for the District of Columbia. As it turns out, by the time a matter comes to the floor, the deal is done. But I draw your attention to the fact that I do not have the final vote on the House floor, and yet the D.C. budget is voted on the House floor. I do not have a vote on the House floor, although the people I represent are number one, per capita, in Federal taxes paid to support the United States of America. If anybody deserves a vote on this House floor, it is the residents of the District of Columbia who deserve that vote. Here is another reason why the residents of the District of Columbia deserve statehood or, at the very least, a vote in the House of Representatives, the people's House: The budget of the District of Columbia is larger than the budget of 12 States; the District of Columbia has more residents than two States. Here is the District of Columbia, here is Vermont, and here is Wyoming. Each has two Senators, but not the District of Columbia. Yet the District of Columbia has more residents than Vermont and more residents than Wyoming. You begin to see how the inequality comes up just in population. The District has a budget surplus. It is almost $2 billion. That is the envy of most States, that kind of large surplus, because a surplus means that you are not spending all your money. You are putting money aside, which is what, of course, is encouraged for all the States, but very few States have this kind of surplus. We are not talking about a big poor city. The per capita personal income of the District of Columbia is higher than the per capita income of the residents of any State. Its total personal income is higher than that of seven States. Its per capita personal consumption expenditures are higher than those of any State. Yet, each year, I have to fight abuses of home rule, as we call it, or self-government for the District of Columbia, using the fact that this budget has to pass through here in order for the District of Columbia to use its own budget. Members rush to press what we call riders--I have indicated amendments--to our local budget. There have been about four attempts to repeal the Local Budget Autonomy Act. The District passed a Budget Autonomy Act. The House repealed it; the Senate did not. The only quarrel we have with that is, although we have a Budget Autonomy Act, the House and the Senate continue to appropriate the District's budget after it has already been appropriated by the District of Columbia government. Nothing has ever been so redundant as the congressional appropriation, or shall we call it reappropriation, of the District's local budget. There is the annual repeal--and I say ``annual repeal'' because I have been able to keep it from being repealed altogether--of the so- called Death with Dignity Act. This is a controversial piece of legislation, but eight States have this same legislation which allows a doctor to give a pharmaceutical to somebody who asks for it, has 6 months to live and is in great pain. It is interesting to note that in the District of Columbia and in the States that have the so-called Death with Dignity Act, most people who have this pharmaceutical that allows them to end their own lives do not use it. Obviously, they are only looking for a peaceful way to die, and most of them decide to die without taking their own lives. If such a law exists in eight States, there is no reason why it shouldn't also exist in the District of Columbia. I have been able to keep that law from being repealed, and I will do it again. There is a third bill that, again, is annually repealed. It is called the Reproductive Health Nondiscrimination Act. Why would anybody want to repeal an act that simply says to an employer that you cannot penalize an employee for the form of birth control that an employee uses? In the first place, most employers shouldn't even know that private information. The District passed such a law, the House repeals it, and I am able to keep it from being repealed in the final bill every single time. But it gives some sense of how Members scramble for bills they don't want in their districts, but since it was passed in mine and since they can abuse their own congressional power, they simply decide to do so. They have not been able to repeal it, but I believe, if the polls are correct, the Democrats will recapture the House, and then I believe I will be able to dispose of these issues as well. Again, these are controversial, but other States have these same laws. There is a perennial amendment to keep the District from spending its own local funds on abortions for poor women. Seventeen States do that, no Federal funds. What other States are doing, the District should be able to do for our American citizens. Another, of course, is recreational marijuana. This is another matter that has been passed by almost 9 States and DC. Essentially, these States legalized small amounts of marijuana. In the District, it is 2 ounces. The House stumbled to try to repeal the District's marijuana law. It was unsuccessful, so the District still has legal marijuana up to 2 ounces. However, it can't regulate marijuana, and it can't monetize it. If you go to the States that have legal marijuana, they sell it, they tax it. There is no reason why the District of Columbia shouldn't be able to do the same thing. This year, there are some additional riders. Representative Gary Palmer, a Republican from Alabama, needs to mind his own business. Instead, he has filed amendments to keep the District from using its local funds to pass something that you would think would not even come to his attention. It is an initiative that would raise the minimum wage so that everybody in the District of Columbia earns the same minimum wage and so that so-called tipped workers do not live on tips alone but on a basic wage in addition to whatever tips they get. The industry doesn't like this, but if you are a tipped worker, you may well like it. Actually, it didn't pass overwhelmingly, but it passed in the District. The District Council does have the right to overturn a referendum or an initiative. It may overturn this on its own, but here comes Congress rushing in to overturn the Tip Minimum Wage Act. I had to chuckle at another amendment that was filed, I think also by Mr. Palmer, who definitely needs more work to do because he keeps meddling in our business. This rider goes after the District's bill that mandates health insurance. What this is about is Republican Members smarting at the notion that they have not been able to overturn the Affordable Care Act. They have not been able to do that here either. It turns out that the Affordable Care Act is, I believe, the most popular piece of recent legislation on the books today. It has gotten more and more popular the more the House and the Senate have tried to cripple it. Local jurisdictions have their own version, and the District says, yes, you must have health insurance. Why do they say people must have health insurance? Why did the Affordable Care Act say that? It is the basic law of insurance. If you spread the risk and spread the cost, then, of course, everybody's insurance costs less. So it is the ABCs of insurance. That is why you have jurisdictions continuing to mandate what the Affordable Care Act did. It is interesting to note that the Senate is not going home for the August recess, and the reason it is not going home is it is trying to get through a new addition to the Supreme Court. By the way, that proposed member is Brett Kavanaugh, who happens to sit on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. As it turns out, the Democrats in the Senate have one-upped this decision to stay for the August recess because the Democrats are using that time to speak and to press the Affordable Care Act, which is so popular and will help them, I am sure, in the November elections. Madam Speaker, may I ask what my remaining time is.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, it doesn't stop in the House. It goes over to the Senate. But one of the reasons I have been able to get these antidemocratic riders off is that the Senate has helped me even though the Senate is controlled by Republicans, not Democrats. And the reason I think the Senate has been more open is that, unlike the polarized House--and, sure, the Senate is polarized as well--the Senate, by its very nature, represents a broader cross-section of the American people and, thus, represent Republicans and Democrats and has to think about how far it wants to go with making itself a target by trying to overturn somebody else's legislation. So we are able to get most of these antidemocratic riders off there. I note that Senator Ted Cruz also needs to devote more attention to his own constituents from Texas because, in the Senate, he is trying to do what Representative Palmer is doing: to get rid of the District's healthcare mandate. Again, Senator Cruz represents a large State. He is not doing his best for them as long as he is meddling in the business of another city, another jurisdiction, the District of Columbia. It is the height of hypocrisy for Republicans to spend so much time trying to overturn the laws of the District of Columbia because local control is a core belief of Republicans in the House and the Senate. We are going to hold them to that core belief when it comes to matters affecting the District of Columbia. Meddling in the business of the District of Columbia can and has cost the District of Columbia actual dollars. The District of Columbia just had another bond market report and an upgrade of its rating by one of them to AAA. Yet one of the bond markets, Standard & Poor's, said: ``[W]e 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 . . .'' What S&P is saying is, essentially, there is an unknown here. There is an actor. It is the Congress of the United States meddling in the business of the District of Columbia. So it is hard to judge the District of Columbia as long as somebody can come from left or right field and try to change parts of its business. Essentially, what you have is S&P and other bond markets calling for Congress to let the District be the District so it can be judged by what the District alone does. Look at what they say when the bond markets look at what the District alone does. Look at what the bond markets say. Let's look at Moody's, who has just given the District a AAA rating, given its bonds a AAA rating: ``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 is exemplary. Reserves are robust . . .'' I want to ask Members of this body how many of you have had reports like that on your own jurisdiction. Moody's goes on to say: ``The District of Columbia, the nation's capital, is small but wealthy. Its population would rank 48th among States . . .'' That is what you see with this graph. [B]ut its per capita income is higher. I repeat, the District's ``per capita income is higher than all 50 States, and its GDP is greater than 17 States.'' What more do you want from the District of Columbia when you get that kind of objective report on its finances? The fact is that only eight big cities--the District of Columbia and seven others--have AAA bond ratings. Only 22 of the States have AAA bond ratings. Again, I repeat, what more do you want from us when we have excelled, outdone the great cities of the United States, outdone most of the States in our fiscal prudence? Such an outsized performance, if anything, should encourage the Congress to, at the very least, recognize the District's budget autonomy law. Here I am not talking about statehood. I am talking about the District's budget, having it stay in the District, go into effect immediately and not come as a pass-through to this body, because, by coming here, it gets harmed. It adds costs to the budget because of the uncertainty of having another actor, the federal government, who could do anything to your local budget. The bond markets have made the best case for recognizing the District's budget autonomy law, instead of another passage of the appropriation after the District has already passed it and getting our budget here only to see if Members can attach undemocratic amendments, and get them passed that way. The fact is, if there were budget autonomy--here, I am not talking about statehood, but only the budget of the District, like the budget of every other city and State--and the budget didn't come to the Congress--if the District had that, it would lower our taxes even more, and the District would need even less in Federal funds. I have already gotten the rating agencies to credit a provision I got in the budget keeping the District from being shut down if the Federal Government shuts down. That is what I said: shut down. The Congress often acts like a child. Sometimes they disagree with the President; sometimes they disagree among themselves; and the whole darn thing just closes down, leaving everybody out there on his own with no budget; and then the House and the Senate go at one another until they finally get something done. I have annually gotten into the D.C. appropriation a provision exempting the District from the threat of the shutdown. So here is the irony: If the Federal Government shuts down or if doesn't pass a budget on time, the District's budget goes into effect; and it goes into effect at next year's budget levels, while with the Federal Government, the most that will happen is that it will stay open on the prior year's budget. We are grateful that the bond markets have recognized the District as one of the most fiscally responsible jurisdictions in the United States. We are grateful that they have pointed out who the culprit is if we want to get an even higher rating than we share with seven States who have AAA ratings. Remember, Madam Speaker, nobody in this body is interested in the D.C. budget. That is how I have been able to make sure that nothing happens on the District budget. And since there is no interest in it, it simply shouldn't be here. The District budget is just like a number of other items here from the District that I have been able to keep from being overturned. An example is the District's gun laws. It may be the best example. Every year, I keep the Congress from passing bills to overturn the District's gun laws. They are very extreme. I do it in the House, and I do it in the Senate, even though I am not in the Senate, and there is nobody from the District of Columbia in the Senate. Senator Marco Rubio from the State of Florida has been the chief culprit of late. Members vary as to who tries to wipe out all the District's gun laws. You would think that Senator Marco Rubio would be the last to do that, because Parkland, Florida youngsters have become the leading advocates for gun safety control in the United States and are making some considerable headway. But, actually, Senator Rubio started his effort to wipe out the District's gun laws before the Parkland tragedy. And why did he do it? What does he care about the District? He doesn't care about the District. He cares about his NRA rating. Apparently, he had a B-plus NRA rating, National Rifle Association rating. Within minutes of putting in a bill to eliminate all the gun safety laws of the District of Columbia, the NRA raised his rating from a B-plus to an A. Do you want to know why I am mad? Why I come to this House floor to say get off our backs and treat us like every other jurisdiction? That is a perfect example: using the District of Columbia to get an increased NRA rating. Over here, it is the Representative from Virginia (Mr. Garrett) who partners with Senator Rubio. Neither of them has been successful. Why should I have to fight these two Members at all about an entirely local matter? Mr. Speaker, I have not asked only for statehood. I understand the House and the Senate are essentially incremental bodies. So I have bills that would simply give the District many of the elements of statehood. An example would be a local prosecutor. What is the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia doing prosecuting local crimes? That is what he does. In fact, more than 90 percent of the business of this U.S. attorney doesn't have anything to do with Federal matters. Again, this is a holdover from before the District had what we call home rule, and it was 45 years ago that the District was given the right to govern itself. But that, the Congress could give the District, and then the District would choose its own local DA. There are other examples. the President offers clemency, and that means it never happens for people in prison in the District. That is a State function. The District knows more about its own local residents who are incarcerated than any president. That is the kind of matter that should go to the District of Columbia. I cite these examples because they are not statehood. They are just ordinary home rule jurisdiction, ordinary democracy. Mr. Speaker, I want to close with the most poignant examples of denial of democracy to District of Columbia's residents. Mr. Speaker, the most poignant of the reasons residents resent the denial of equal treatment to their own jurisdiction has to do with the sacrifices that District of Columbia residents have made in every war since the creation of the republic. The District is one of the oldest cities in the United States. It was created by the Founders. District residents fought in the war that created the United States of America. Thus, the city stands as a living contradiction to what the Framers fought for: ``No taxation without representation.'' Residents of the District are not only taxed without representation in the House and the Senate, they are taxed at a higher rate than other Americans--they are number one per capita in Federal taxes paid to support the Government of the United States. When you consider the sacrifices that our residents have made, one would wonder how they could possibly be denied equal treatment in their own country. One way to understand the sacrifices the District has made is to look at those sacrifices in times of war: World War I, more District casualties than three States; World War II, more District casualties than four States--understand that we are talking about a city, and these are more casualties than in the States; Korean war, more casualties than in eight States of the United States--this city, more casualties than in eight States; finally, the very worst of the casualties, the Vietnam war, more casualties than in 10 States. There is not an American who wouldn't say that, with those sacrifices and with federal taxes paid at a higher rate than any others are taxed, surely the 700,000 residents who live in our Nation's Capital have more than paid their dues. So I have come to make that case. It is not a difficult case to make. At the heart of the case are the sacrifices in lives for their country. Not only did they not have the vote, but, to date, as I speak, those who are serving their country in Afghanistan and around the world are doing so without equality with other Americans, with the votes in the House and the Senate. If you were to ask the American people, I have no doubt where they would be on the issues I have spoken about this afternoon. The Democrats are doing very well in the House and the Senate. I will ask for a vote for the District in this House, if in fact Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, as it seems they will. This is a matter that should be bipartisan, but my party does not control the House. There is no chance of getting the kind of equality that our country stands for unless my party gets control of the House. Therefore, I hope all will understand that is why I am working hard to see a change in who controls the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States. The District residents, those who died, those who live here today, have more than earned their right to be treated as equal American citizens. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to celebrate the District of Columbia, one of only eight big cities with a AAA bond rating. Indeed, only 22 of the States have a AAA bond rating. This outsized performance should encourage Congress to recognize the D.C. budget autonomy law, which would improve D.C.'s credit profile even more. Fully respecting D.C.'s budget autonomy also would mean lower taxes and less Federal funds the District needs from the Federal Government. I have already gotten the rating agencies to count as a positive to D.C.'s credit rating my annual provision in the D.C. appropriation exempting D.C. from the threat of shutdowns when the Federal Government shuts down. Seven-hundred thousand D.C. residents pay the highest Federal taxes per capita in the United States. The rating agencies have awarded D.C. for ``exemplary fiscal governance.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to do the same by recognizing D.C.'s budget autonomy over its own 100 percent local budget.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to speak to two issues. One, is the dagger thrown at the heart of the right of Federal employees to organize. The second will be ICE raids that randomly rounded up residents of the District of Columbia without a warrant and without any cause. Let me proceed first to the gang-up on Federal employees by the executive and Republicans in the House to undermine the rights of Federal unions to represent Federal employees. We have seen Republicans for years try to weaken the rights of Federal employees. Certainly, we have seen them go at unions before. But this time, they have gone even further. The intention to destroy the right of a union to represent Federal employees is the clear intent of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I shall explain why that intent is so obvious this evening. The American Federation of Government Employees had a rally today. Attending also were many other employee unions, but the AFGE led the rally because of the acute danger that the current work of the Republican House and the President present to the right to organize and to be represented. Federal employees are represented in virtually every category of work by the AFGE. If we look at what the President and the House Republicans are doing, it is clear that they have declared war on their own Federal employees. They have done it by striking at the heart of the right to be represented by a Federal union. I will explain how they have moved against that right, but, first, let me explain where that right comes from and why there is any such right at all. You certainly don't have that kind of right in the business sector. You can't go to the business sector and say: Hey, look, I have a right to have a union here. You have to fight for it, and I might add, so do Federal unions have to fight for it. They have to get their cards and the Federal employee votes. But there is an important trade-off here. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, recognizing that the Government did not want to allow Federal workers the right to strike--which is a constitutional right--designed a system which is indeed a trade-off. You will give up the right to strike, and, in return, you, Federal employees, will have the right to be represented by a union if you win a union election and the Federal Government will not oppose your right to organize. That is very important because employers in the private sector, of course, do oppose. I don't mean to say that Federal agencies don't try their best to see that an agency doesn't get representation, but they cannot simply keep that from occurring. That is the trade-off from the Civil Service Reform Act. One of the most important aspects of the right to represent Federal employees is to use official time-on-the-job to represent employees to settle matters with a Federal agency. That is the whole reason that this right was given in the first place. Even apart from a right to strike, if you have an employee who has a grievance, there has got to be some way to make sure that grievance is attended to. Official time use, by another Federal employee operating as a volunteer, allows such matters to be settled in a peaceful way without a strike. What the official time means is, an employee says: With no pay, I agree to help other employees through the system to have their matter brought to the agency and somehow dealt with. They either win or they lose or they settle. Employees often don't understand the system. They don't use the system every day, so a volunteer works to help them use the official time. Now, official time only means that that volunteer employee is given time from his or her work to represent this person. Does that mean the person doesn't have any work? It does not. It is a real sacrifice, Mr. Speaker. That person isn't given a lesser workload, that person has to find a way to get that done and to represent employees as well, or to trade off with another employee who will also represent employees. Remember, this is to keep labor peace and to keep the Federal Government working so that there is a civilized way to settle a matter between the Federal employer and an employee. But the AFGE has had to turn to the courts in order to get this right enforced. Why in the world would that be necessary given the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978? It is going to be necessary because what is being proposed in this House is in violation of that act. I shall explain. Republicans today are so intent on destroying unions--understand, unions are not nearly as powerful as they once were decades ago--but Republicans are so intent on destroying unions that in the case of Federal employees, they are using the two branches of Government at once--remember, they control three--the two political branches of Government to destroy the representation of a union. They control the executive, they control the House, they control the Senate. So they pull all stops, using all of their energy and all of their power against their own Federal workers. I think of it as a two-fisted approach. One fist is pending on this House floor, as I speak. Indeed, it is due to come to the House floor in September. It is a bill I fought in committee along with many other members. You can't just abolish official time to represent employees, because the Civil Service Reform Act gives them that right. This is why I think that what the House does in this bill cannot stand, because what it does is to so reduce the amount of time, so- called official time, that you can help many employees get through the system. You are like a lawyer. The employee is fresh to the system, so he or she needs somebody to tell the employee how to get through the system. But if there is so little time, while you are helping one employee who may be using up all the time that the House Republican bill would give, which is one-quarter of the time that is now being allowed. Where did they get that figure from? Nowhere. It is just a matter of not being able to wipe it all out, so let's wipe out almost all of it. It gives so little time to represent all those who need to go through the system with the help of a volunteer employee that I do not believe, for a moment, that this matter will stand. That is why I think the AFGE was right to go to court now. I will tell you in a moment why it has gone to court, even though this bill has not passed the House, as I speak. Not only is so little time given that you couldn't possibly handle all of those who have issues or grievances--it is only a quarter of the time an employee has, that has been previously spent helping other employees to get through the process. There also is an enforcement mechanism in the House bill that is truly vicious. If you go into overtime in helping another employee, you will do so at your own risk, because you will lose your pension credits if you devote more than the amount of time prescribed in this bill. That loss of pension credits is also without due process and arbitrary. That also is why I believe this bill can't stand. But my Republican friends are so anxious to cripple Federal employee unions that they also have asked for the other fist, a Trump executive order. If you look at this executive order, which is essentially the same thing as the pending bill, you can't help but ask: Why two fists on these Federal workers? Why get the President and the Republican House to promise to do the same thing? How many branches, how many arms of government do you need to try to stamp out the rights of Federal employees? I believe I know why the House has turned to President Trump. The House bill is so extreme, so clearly illegal, in my judgment, that it will be difficult to get it through the Senate. So, the President, who obviously has control over the workforce, is being asked to do the same thing by executive order. I don't believe he can do it. I don't believe he can just wipe out official time, if not all of it, so much of it, so that employees cannot be served. But the President may have preempted the House bill, that may come on the floor in September, by his executive order against official time. If you play chess though, watch out, because he has hopped right into it. Now that he has signed an executive order, now that he has come forward with an executive order, he has allowed the AFGE to make a brilliant move. Before the ink was dry on the executive order, the AFGE had gone to court, in a brilliant chess move. And I have no doubt that they will win in court because the flaws of the bill are so clear. I think courts will agree with AFGE. Had the Republicans tried to kill official time and the Senate or to get the same thing through an executive order, you have the same problem, even perhaps worse. The executive order is a clear violation of the Civil Service Reform Act. Understand why the act has worked for so many decades. It is because of labor peace, to use a word that is often used to describe why unions have been important in the Federal sector. You need labor peace. You don't need strikes or disruption by Federal employees. But you have got to have a tradeoff. That tradeoff is adequate representation through a formal process. If that formal process is cut to smithereens and you leave a figment of it in place, don't think that the Federal courts will be fooled by that. This process has worked, but it won't if you make it impossible to do the job that the Civil Service Reform Act prescribes, and that is to represent Federal employees. Now, the unions aren't fools. They recognize they can't depend on the House or the President. They also recognize there is an election coming up and they know that, at least as of the moment, the people are there to correct for issues either ignored in this House or by threats like the pending bill and the executive order on official time that threatens their rights. The all-powerful Federal Government has absolutely nothing to lose by allowing its employees, who have so little authority, fair access to a process that does no more than allow them to be heard before all- powerful Federal agencies. What could the largest employer in the world be afraid of? It looks as if it is afraid of its own employees, ordinary citizens represented also by Members of the House and the Senate, who ask for no more than a process and, if I may say so, a fair process to be heard, a process that does not show anything like guaranteed winning, but it is at least a process. Well, perhaps these employees are to be feared after all because today they showed up in great numbers. Remember, they showed up on the streets of Washington, D.C., but there are millions of them throughout the United States. They showed up in a fighting mood, fighting back. I am pleased to come to the floor to represent the thousands of employees who showed up. I am simply one among hundreds of Members of the House who will always show up for workers when their rights are being threatened. As it turns out, the American Federation of Government Employees represents both D.C. employees of the D.C. government and Federal employees of the Federal Government and I am proud to represent them all. All that my Republican friends have done is raise their fighting spirit, which has already shown that our chances of taking back the House of Representatives have grown every single day. The second issue I want to say a word about has to do with indiscriminate raids of the kind we have never had in the United States of America before. These are raids on residents. I have seen their effect here, so I will talk about these residents living in the District of Columbia. When you hear of such raids and indiscriminate arrests, perhaps you will understand why cities like the District of Columbia have declared themselves to be sanctuary cities that protect, particularly, their immigrant residents from arbitrary action, recognizing that they will not be able and do not wish to protect them when, in fact, there is a right to take them back to where they came from. But that is not what I am talking about this evening. In the District of Columbia, at least a dozen individuals were arrested last week when it is clear that they would not have been arrested had there been a warrant or had anything but racial profiling--racial and ethnic profiling, I might add--been used, a brazen act. As it turns out, some of the people arrested were, for example, MS- 13. So far as the numbers show, that is 37. Those are people for whom they had a warrant. Those are people for whom there is probable cause that they committed a crime. But that is 37 out of 132. They never could have gotten the rest of these residents without indiscriminate racial profiling. What did they do? First of all, they went to predominantly Latino D.C. neighborhoods, and they went there for a reason. They snatched what appeared to be anyone on the streets who looked like the people they wanted, based on race or appearance. When you have, in the United States, police picking up people based on their appearance, you understand what a police state looks like. The reaction will be, I am sure, intimidation from going into the streets of your own city. Now, ICE boasts that it went looking and found people who present a significant security threat, but they were only able to show 37 such people. When you round up citizens without a warrant and without probable cause based on what they look like, that is what you get: indiscriminate arrests, arrests based on appearance, arrests where you cannot possibly show a significant public safety threat. I am not here to say that MS-13 or others who pose such a threat should not be arrested. I am here to say that breaking up families is an outrageous way to enforce a law and does not, in fact, do so. The Washington field office was responsible for this roundup, and they have indicated the people whom they arrested. I am not here on this floor this evening to defend--here I am reading from people they say they arrested--the El Salvadoran national identified as a high-ranking MS-13 member. I am not here on this floor to defend a Bolivian national who has four prior convictions for rape and intercourse with a victim under 13. They are not what I am here talking about. I am here talking about people who were in the streets minding their own business, with no criminal arrests, with no criminal background, with families at home waiting for them. Yes, we have got to deport people from this country, even if they come in ways that we could otherwise understand. Deportation has to occur. It occurred in the last administration. Some were deported right at the border. I am not here making the case to open the borders wide open and let everybody in. But the courts have already turned around the procedures now being employed, because every day you read in the papers and see on television how many families have been disunited, children and parents broken up, parents deported without their children. The authorities are still looking to unite hundreds of children with their parents. That just isn't what we do in the United States of America. Since one of these roundups occurred here in the Nation's Capital, and the shame is that it would occur in the Capital of the United States, I thought it was my responsibility to come to this floor to call it out and to indicate that these raids are one of the reasons why the District of Columbia will always be a sanctuary city--not a city for MS-13, not a city for those who should be deported, but a city for those who have a right to go through a lawful process. We will not stand for residents to be rounded up in the streets. That means that each and every one of us could be rounded up in the streets based on what we look like. We will not have it. We will resist it. There is a way to deport people. There is a way to make sure that you come into this country legally and to make sure that you are deported if you do not. The wrong way to do it, the way that we cannot tolerate, is to go to police state tactics, unknown before in our country, and particularly police state tactics in the Capital of the United States, Washington, D.C. So, Mr. Speaker, as the House prepares to go home later in the week, these are two issues I felt I had to put before this body. I would hope that we all would think of better ways to accomplish our ends. If our problem is with Federal employees, let's deal with that problem and not try to nullify a statute that took into account our differences, the Civil Service Reform Act. As for Hispanics and other immigrants being snatched off the streets, I would hope that I do not stand alone in saying tonight that that is not the American way. There are hundreds of jurisdictions that are with us as sanctuary cities to stand and say that that is not the American way. I am pleased that the courts of the United States have protected sanctuary cities just as these cities have protected residents from arbitrary treatment in the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to recognize the Citi Open Tennis Tournament, taking place July 28 through August 5, 2018, in Rock Creek Park, on its 50th edition in the District of Columbia. This tournament is not only a Washington tennis tradition, but also an economic staple in the region. The Washington tennis tournament, now known as the Citi Open Tennis Tournament, was founded in 1969 by tennis legend and Hall of Famer Donald Dell and his business partner John Harris with the support of Arthur Ashe, the first African American to win both the U.S. Open and Wimbledon tournaments. Ashe declared he would participate in the inaugural tournament under two conditions: that the tournament would take place in a naturally integrated neighborhood, and that it would be played on public land where all people could come together, enjoy the sport and share the experience. Today, the tournament remains at its original location, 16th & Kennedy Streets NW, in Rock Creek Park. In 1972, Dell gifted the tournament to the Washington Tennis & Education Foundation (then called the Washington Area Tennis Patrons), a nonprofit organization supporting local education causes for over 1,500 low-income and underserved children in the District. The Citi Open Tennis Tournament draws the best players in the world, making D.C. a global tennis destination. The tournament is also seen on television in over 140 countries, contributing to the city's reputation as a tourist destination. Recent economic impact studies found that the estimated total gross impact of the Citi Open Tennis Tournament on the regional economy exceeds $25 million annually. The tournament is the only Association of Tennis Professionals 500 level event in the United States and one of only four professional tennis tournaments combining men's and women's events. It is also recognized as an international level tournament by the Women's Tennis Association. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the tournament's 50th edition by celebrating ``Tennis Week in the District of Columbia,'' commemorated July 28 through August 5, 2018, as well as acknowledging the Washington Tennis & Education Foundation for a world-class sporting event and contributions raised for D.C. youth.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize the nation's community corrections professionals and the vital role they play in enhancing public safety throughout the United States. In honor of the invaluable contributions of these dedicated public servants, the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) and its associated members have designated July 15 through July 21, 2018, ``Pretrial, Probation and Parole Supervision Week 2018.'' I thank the thousands of men and women who perform these important public safety duties, and urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in support of APPA's week-long recognition efforts this year. In my congressional district, the nation's capital, thousands of women and men serve as pretrial, probation and parole officers or administrators. As public servants, these constituents, along with many other Americans, commit themselves on a daily basis to helping improve the lives of those involved in the criminal justice system. The work of these professionals ultimately results in stronger and safer communities for all. Community corrections professionals are responsible for the supervision of adult and juvenile offenders in communities throughout our nation. These trained professionals go above and beyond the call of duty by connecting their clients to supportive services, community- based resources, employment opportunities, housing programs and other evidence-based practices that help individuals successfully complete supervision and reenter society. Community corrections professionals strive to provide these services and support, while simultaneously providing client supervision, crime prevention and restorative justice. In honor of Pretrial, Probation and Parole Supervision Week 2018, I want to particularly recognize those who carry out community corrections and supervision services here in the District of Columbia, because unlike in other jurisdictions, officers and professionals of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA) come under congressional jurisdiction. CSOSA and the Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia (PSA) are dedicated to reducing recidivism and enhancing public safety in the nation's capital. CSOSA and PSA are recognized as model community supervision entities because of their use of evidence-based practices and community partnerships. On any given day, CSOSA is responsible for supervising approximately 15,000 individuals on probation, parole or supervised release, while PSA supervises over 18,000 defendants over the course of a year. Charged with having to balance issues of public safety with social services and reentry support, the employees of CSOSA and PSA help to enhance the security of everyone who lives, works or visits the District. Mr. Speaker, again, I extend my gratitude to these public servants for their commitment, compassion and contributions to healthier and safer communities throughout the United States. I ask the House of Representatives to join me in acknowledging the impact community corrections professionals have on the quality of life of all Americans throughout our country by recognizing July 15 through July 21, 2018, as Pretrial, Probation and Parole Supervision Week 2018.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove myself as a cosponsor of H.R. 2069, the Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities Act of 2017.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the kind words of my friend from Pennsylvania, and I certainly appreciate his leadership of this Special Order this evening. It is a subject of immense importance to the American people, none more so, Mr. Speaker, than people of color in the United States of America. So I would like to begin this Special Order by speaking about President Trump's district and circuit court nominees and then about his Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, who serves on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. That is the circuit of my own home district, the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, long before I came to the House, I had the distinct honor of arguing and winning a case before the United States Supreme Court. That case was a free speech case where I represented plaintiffs with whom I profoundly disagreed. As we look at the President's nominees, especially to the Supreme Court, one wonders today how these nominees would rule. Let's look first at President Trump's nominees so far to the circuit courts and the district court. This is an amazing, unprecedented figure for the 21st century. His nominees are 90.1 percent white, 2.3 percent African American. Now, one way to look at this is to look at another Republican President. So I said to my staff: Find the racial makeup of President Bush's nominees. Remember, African Americans don't expect a Republican President to offer anything like the number of nominees of, for example, President Barack Obama, not because he was African American, but because he was, after all, a Democrat. That is not the standard to which I am holding this President. The standard I am holding this President to is, by comparison, to Republican Presidents. The lion's share of President Bush's appointees was also White. I had no complaint then. I don't recall the Congressional Black Caucus taking to the floor and saying: How come the lion's share of President Bush's nominees was White, more than 85 percent? That reflected his party and his supporters. But 8.5 percent of President Bush's nominees were African American, compared to 2.3 percent of Trump's nominees. So that means that President Bush--and I am looking at the comparable period; I am not looking at his overall two terms in office; I am looking at up until now--he had appointed three times as many African Americans to the bench. Far more Whites, and I have no complaint about that. But the Supreme Court and the Federal courts have meant everything to African Americans. I do not need to point out that the political bodies, the House and the Senate, took many years to recognize equal protection for African Americans. It didn't happen, indeed, until the courts made it happen in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, showing, I think, that the courts are of immense importance to a group that is not the majority and must depend upon the fairness of the majority and even more so on the courts, which are supposed to play no favorites whatsoever, only to equal justice under the law. The President and the Republican Senate have made the Federal courts a top priority. I believe they have appointed as many as 40 nominees, if I am not mistaken. In fact, the Supreme Court means so much to them, even though they already have a majority on the Supreme Court with their most recent nominee, it means so much to them that our Republican friends in the Senate are wiping out their entire August recess to stay here to try to get Brett Kavanaugh nominated, and there is a fierce fight underway. I am speaking about not only Brett Kavanaugh, the judge who sits on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, but I want to give you some sense of judges who sit on other circuits in other district courts, to make it clear why the Congressional Black Caucus is so alarmed at what is happening with federal court nominees. Some Federal court nominees proposed by this President have had to be rejected because they were unacceptable on any court, beyond any sense of conservatism. Most recently--I believe it was just last week--Ryan Bounds was to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A Republican Senate forced Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to withdraw his name because two Republican Senators, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, had indicated that they could not vote for Ryan Bounds because of remarks he had made on multiculturalism and racial issues. You don't want anybody on the bench who has already shown racial animus. Since the Senate is so closely divided--51 Republicans to 49 Democrats--they were forced to withdraw Ryan Bounds' nomination. I point that out to let you know that it is not a done deal that Brett Kavanaugh will go on the Supreme Court. That close number is going to hold up, we think, not only for Democrats, but when Senate hearings are over, we believe it will be very difficult even for some of our Republican friends to vote for Judge Kavanaugh. Remember, the Senate represents a rather broad swath of people, so they will have to watch out for their own elections as well. Let me give another example of how extreme President Trump's nominees to the Federal courts can be. Three more have had to be withdrawn related to race. Again, I am going to give you examples, and you will say nobody would ever have nominated such people to any court in the United States. Last year, the White House was forced to withdraw a district court nominee, Brett Talley. What forced his withdrawal were reports that he had defended the first Ku Klux Klan in an online post--that is, the first, I suppose, emergence of the Ku Klux Klan--as recently as in a 2011 posting. Jeff Mateer had his nomination withdrawn over reports that transgender children were--and I am quoting him now--part of ``Satan's plan.'' Now, look, if I were to call out these remarks, you might think that nobody thought of for the Federal bench would be who I was talking about, but that is exactly who we were talking about. That is why the Congressional Black Caucus cannot possibly support Judge Kavanaugh. We understand that whatever nominee comes forward is going to be a conservative nominee. We are not asking for the nominee we would appoint. We are simply not asking for and will do all we can to oppose nominees who are beyond the American pale. I am speaking for the Congressional Black Caucus, which represents 17 million African Americans. It is interesting to note that we have, in looking at Judge Kavanaugh, and here I am going on to the Supreme Court, in looking at his decisions, we have grown truly concerned about his lack of respect for precedent. I say that even though, increasingly, these precedents run against us. But when they have run for us, they have been on matters of equal protection under the law. And Judge Kavanaugh has shown an uncommon disrespect for precedent. I invite my Republican friends, who also respect precedent because many of those precedents will reinforce their own views, to be leery of any judge who disregards precedent. His views on civil rights and equal protection have been out of the mainstream, but there haven't been a lot of them, so I have had to look closely to see what his views actually are. I must say that, even his conservative colleagues and, I must emphasize, on the D.C. Circuit, which is now a conservative circuit with more Republican judges than Democratic judges, have often had to disagree with their colleague Judge Kavanaugh. He has achieved a higher number of dissents than any member of the D.C. Circuit Court annually. How could that happen? This is a conservative court. Who is he dissenting from? He is dissenting from not only the Democratic appointees but from his own colleagues appointed by Republicans. Now, of course, the notion of equal protection has disproportionately protected minorities and women, so we are very mindful of such decisions, even when they don't directly entail people of color whom we directly represent. For example, we are concerned that no Americans be arrested without probable cause, and if you are a minority in any country, the probability of arrest will be greater than if you are among the majority. We are concerned about the Affordable Care Act, again because of the disproportionate number of African Americans who are affected. I am going to cite some decisions that show that Judge Kavanaugh cannot be trusted to uphold what even his conservative colleagues have said on such issues as these. Let us look at arrests without probable cause. I bring that up because of the churning of relevent issues in our country. A week does not go by that there hasn't been a shooting of an African American by a police officer. This issue is among the very top in the African American community, the concern about overzealous police officers. Kavanaugh has both spoken out and written, over and over again, in such a way to indicate that he would weaken probable cause standards that have stood for the ages--that is how long they have been there-- making them, as he has written, more flexible. As you consider this possible change as one about which African Americans are concerned, I hope you understand that most of the people who need probable cause in this country are White. So decisions making it easier to do searches without a warrant or ``individualized suspicion''--I am quoting him--are decisions he believes need to be looked at more closely, even though the existing precedents has been clear, and they have not been challenged in other circuits. Perhaps the rule that most Americans understand best is the so-called Miranda rule. That is a rule that says you don't have to incriminate yourself. Judge Kavanaugh appears to want to narrow that rule. I didn't think I would ever see the day when, after decades--must be 50 years-- of Miranda juris prudence, there would be any judge sitting on any bench who would want to narrow the self-incrimination rule. Of special interest to African Americans are Judge Kavanaugh's apparent views on Roe v. Wade, or the right of a woman to choice. We don't know precisely where he stands on choice, but there is a very troubling precedent from this circuit involving an undocumented woman who had been found to be entitled to an abortion. Now, that hadn't happened here. The case was in the D.C. Circuit, but the ruling was from a Texas court, perhaps the most conservative on matters of abortion, which made this woman go through many steps before deciding that she, indeed, qualified under Roe v. Wade for an abortion. Judge Kavanaugh tried to do something that is unfathomable. The time was running. The House wants abortions done within 20 weeks. Roe v. Wade allows more time. The time was running, but Judge Kavanaugh ruled that she should have to get a sponsor before she could, in fact, enforce her constitutional rights to choice. His own court overruled Judge Kavanaugh. I bring that up in no small part because African American women, for example, use abortion at a rate that is beyond the average American woman, so this issue matters to the Congressional Black Caucus. On the Affordable Care Act, we have perhaps the most astonishing of Judge Kavanaugh's decisions. He hasn't said the ACA is unconstitutional. That is pretty hard to say at the circuit court level. But he has said something that has never been said before in American juris prudence: that a President may decline to enforce a law even after the Supreme Court has said that the law or statute is constitutional. Understand what this means. The Affordable Care Act has been found to be constitutional. Yes, there are still attempts in this House to overturn it, but it stands. It is so popular that, while Brett Kavanaugh is being discussed in the Senate during the month of August, Senate Democrats are going to be talking about the Affordable Care Act because it has become one of the most popular laws in the United States today, even though the Republicans have done all they could to cripple it. Judge Kavanaugh has said that the President may decline to enforce a law like the Affordable Care Act even after it is found to be constitutional. What happens to the rule of law if that becomes the standing law of the United States? This is not just a wrong view but a dangerous view. It would allow Presidents to pick and choose which laws to enforce, notwithstanding the courts, that a President could stand as the sole decider of what laws to enforce, notwithstanding the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Speaker, Brett Kavanaugh isn't fit to go to the Supreme Court of the United States based on the record he has shown. Yet Judge Kavanaugh seems to have gone out of his way to try to write his way onto the Supreme Court. Why would he write so often in dissent? Why would he so often in write the law, views that are uncommon among Republicans? I think he was trying to draw the attention of President Trump. And one of the reasons I think so is the last issue I will discuss, and that is this nominee's view, Judge Kavanaugh's view, of the independent counsel. You really had to dig this one up. As recently as 2017, he dug back into a decision of long ago. This is a 1988 decision, Morrison v. Olson. He said he had not agreed with the author of the decision. It was Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Republican Chief Justice. But he went out of his way to wonder about Judge Rehnquist's holding in that case, Morrison v. Olson, that the independent counsel was constitutional. Why has Judge Kavanaugh gone out of his way to talk about the independent counsel when, in fact, there was no such case before him? I think he was sending a signal to this President: Don't worry about the independent counsel as far as I am concerned. I quarrel with whether or not the independent counsel law is constitutional. If there wasn't an independent counsel law, really, what would be the deterrent to a lawless President? The deterrent, of course, would have to be impeachment. Impeachment is understood to be a political but difficult process. That is why it is very hard to get. So right now, we have matters before the independent counsel that, indeed, are ordinary criminal and civil matters. The notion that somebody sitting on any Federal court of the United States believes that the independent counsel statute is unconstitutional or could be-- he hasn't said that it is unconstitutional. He has come so close to it that it is noteworthy, for anyone judging whether he should go on the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Kavanaugh has demonstrated such a departure from established American law that one wonders why he wants to be on the Supreme Court of the United States. He has made a lifetime record of numerous dissents, I think, in order to show that he means to bring an even sharper departure from precedent than we have seen. One of the most important and most conservative ways in which the courts operate is by precedent. So it is very hard to overturn precedent. But a determined member of the Court can chip away at precedent, and, we are sure, can chip away at the rights of the minority who is disproportionately dependent on a fair Supreme Court. So I say to my good friend from Pennsylvania that we have our work cut out for us. But the President's district and circuit nominees have not all been upheld, and that should encourage us to know that, while we are not in the Senate, we do have two members of the Congressional Black Caucus who are in the Senate, and we must all be doing all we can here in the House to help them make the American people understand what is at stake and to make sure that the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Judge Brett Kavanaugh, does not become a member of the Supreme Court of the United States. I thank my good friend for his leadership this evening.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, my good friend who raises the question about Brown v. Board of Education may seem to be raising the question about such settled law, both with the American people and the courts, that it couldn't possibly come up. If I may first respond to the gentleman by saying that one of President Trump's nominees was asked where she stood on Brown v. Board of Education, and she declined to give an answer. More than 50 years after the Supreme Court, for the first time, recognized that African Americans must be treated the same as everyone else in the United States, we now have a nominee who questions even that precedent. You may not be able to overturn it, but consider the notion of chipping away any part of it, remembering what it meant is spread now not across schools, but across the juris prudence of equality. I appreciate the question. I say to my good friend from Pennsylvania, I appreciate the question so that Americans will understand that our opposition to Judge Kavanaugh is not far-fetched, that we are talking about a Supreme Court nominee, who leads us to believe that the most settled of decisions could be rocked by this nominee to the Supreme Court.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, that is a most interesting question. And as the gentleman indicated, I pointed out that I didn't expect a Republican President to come anywhere near Democratic Presidents in proposing nominees. However, I don't expect complete disdain for the importance of the courts to African Americans. I would not expect the lowest number of African Americans appointed to the courts of the United States in memory, certainly not since the 20th century in Brown v. Board of Education. There had been some sense among Republican Presidents that one way to indicate that a Republican President believed in equal justice was to propose some African Americans on the court. Now, when you get to 90 percent--more than 90 percent nominees White, you are sending a very strong message on equal protection to African Americans. This President has been accused of racism because of some of the things he has said. For example, Charlottesville, when he seemed to be for those killing people and not against them. I am not sure what his personal views are, but I am sure that when he shows disdain for equal protection and has given us no evidence that he understands equal protection, that we have every reason to wonder what it is that he intends to do to show people of every background that he is for equal justice. It does seem to me that the President needs to make some gesture to indicate that he believes that all people are created equal. The best gesture would be to bite into this 90 percent--this 2 percent figure, a little over 2 percent figure of African Americans appointed to the bench, raise that number, as the Congressional Black Caucus calls on him to do this evening. He may have, for example, been reacting to those staff who have been giving him judges to appoint, but I say to you, I say to my good friend from Pennsylvania, that there are many Senators who, I am sure, have suggested some qualified African American nominees or could do so. I would urge the President to wipe away this notion that he thinks the United States of America should have as close to an all White judiciary as he can get by talking to, listening to some Senators who I am almost certain will have already put forward some African Americans, or surely will be doing so in the future

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the most important thing I would say to the people is look at that 49-51 figure of how close the Senate is, and within a couple of months, there will be an election. We could turn a lot of this around. If, as the polls tend to show, Democrats capture the House, and they are increasingly showing that they will keep the Senate, it seems to me all the American people can do now is take it to the ultimate remedy, and that is to change the Congress. And that way, it seems to me, would slow these nominees or get nominees where there will be some consultation with Democrats, as there has been in the past, often, in the Senate because you want to get your nominee through. So I don't think, by any means, that there is anything to fear because there is an election coming and I believe that what this nominee for the Supreme Court and others for the district courts--and here we have African Americans mindful of the district courts and the courts of appeals throughout the United States. Surely all of that is, forgive the word, ammunition to go to the polls to make sure we halt this stripping of equal protection from the Federal courts of the United States.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in strong opposition to this amendment interfering in the local affairs of the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, you wouldn't know it from hearing the Member on the other side speak, but in 1973, Congress passed the bipartisan District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which created a locally elected government. According to the Home Rule Act, a central purpose of the act was to ``relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially local District matters.'' In his signing statement of the Home Rule Act, President Nixon wrote, ``It will give the people of the District of Columbia the right . . . to govern themselves in local affairs. . . . `' Yet the bill before us would either repeal or block the District of Columbia from carrying out or enacting five local laws. I filed amendments to strike all of these undemocratic riders, but the Rules Committee has blocked me from offering any of them on the floor, even though they all complied with House rules. I have gotten some of these amendments off in the past, and I intend to do so again, because this matter has to go to the Senate as well, Mr. Chairman. Adding insult to injury, the Rules Committee allowed this and one other undemocratic amendment to be offered. Republicans were not satisfied with sabotaging the Affordable Care Act by, among other things, reducing the penalty for failure to comply with the individual responsibility requirement to $0 in the recently enacted GOP tax scam. The ACA remains standing and popular, nevertheless, throughout the country. Mr. Palmer has moved to sabotage, therefore, the District of Columbia's local health insurance market, too, and deny the 700,000 Federal taxpaying Americans who live in the District of Columbia access to quality, affordable health insurance coverage. This antidemocratic healthcare amendment is offered by Mr. Palmer of Alabama, who doesn't live in and is not responsible to the people of the District of Columbia, but answers to another district. I doubt that Representative Palmer's constituents want him taking time from their business to meddle in the business of another Member's district. This amendment would prohibit the District from spending its own local funds, consisting solely of local taxes and fees, to carry out a local District of Columbia bill that requires individuals to maintain health coverage or to pay a penalty for failure to do so. I remind the House that three States have adopted this same approach. In response to Republican efforts to sabotage the ACA, the District of Columbia, like States across the country, decided to do what they could and, in our case, convened a working group that consisted of businesses, providers, consumers, and insurers on how to preserve quality, affordable coverage locally. In February, the working group unanimously recommended creating a local individual responsibility requirement--and I thought the other side was all about localism--and the District of Columbia Health Benefit Exchange Authority Executive Board unanimously supported the recommendation. The District of Columbia Mayor then included an individual responsibility of requirement in her budget, and the D.C. Council debated and unanimously passed the Health Insurance Requirement Amendment Act of 2018, as required by Congress. Thus, D.C. will join three States in requiring residents to maintain health insurance coverage, and more States are considering doing the very same thing. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this undemocratic, offensive, and harmful amendment that would reduce enrollment in the D.C. individual insurance market by 15 percent, and increase premiums. I ask the gentleman to stay out of the business of my district. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in strong opposition to yet another amendment that interferes with another Member's district, indicating that there is more than one Member in this body that does not have enough to do at home.

Ms. NORTON. A few minutes ago, we debated an amendment offered by Representative Gary Palmer of Alabama that would prohibit the District from spending its own local funds, consisting solely of taxes and fees, to carry out a local D.C. bill, the Health Insurance Requirement Amendment Act of 2018, that requires individuals to maintain health insurance coverage or pay a tax penalty for failure to do so.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the ranking member for his very cogent remarks that go to the principle of the matter before the House today. I have to say, I come to the well of the House in outrage against the attack on the District of Columbia by the Republican House. In 1973-- that is 45 years ago--Congress passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which created the locally elected government. Understand that after the Civil War, it is Republicans who first gave the District of Columbia the right to have its own home rule, a tradition that this Republican majority has repudiated. According to the Home Rule Act, a central purpose of the act was, and I am quoting, ``to relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially local District matters.'' President Nixon, who signed the bill, affirmed that purpose himself when he wrote--and I am going to quote President Nixon: ``One of the major goals of this administration is to place responsibility for local functions under local control and to provide local governments with the authority and resources they need to serve their communities effectively. The measure I signed today represents a significant step in achieving this goal in the city of Washington. It will give the people of the District of Columbia the right to elect their own city officials and to govern themselves in local affairs. ``As the Nation approaches the 200th anniversary of its founding, it is particularly appropriate to ensure those persons who live in the Capital City the rights and privileges which have long been enjoyed by most of their countrymen. But the measure I signed today does more than create machinery for the election of local officials. It also broadens and strengthens the structure of city government to enable it to deal more effectively with its responsibility.'' Signed, Richard Nixon. How do we square those words and the bipartisan Home Rule Act with a fiscal year 2019 appropriation bill which is the most significant abuse of congressional power over the District of Columbia since Republicans took control of the House in 2011? This bill repeals two D.C. laws and prohibits the city from spending its local funds, consisting only of local taxes raised in the city by local citizens, not a cent of it raised from this House, to either carry out or enact three laws. I filed amendments to strike all five of these undemocratic riders. Even though my amendments complied with the House rules, the Rules Committee did not make any of them in order, afraid, apparently, of debate on this matter before the people of the United States. Adding insult to injury, the Rules Committee piled on by making in order two additional anti-Home Rule riders. If this bill stands, there will be a record seven anti-Home Rule riders in it. Some of these riders come back every year, and yet we have been able to get them off every year in conference.

Ms. NORTON. This Republican majority endlessly touts their support of local affairs--a lie, as long as that principle stops at the District of Columbia border, and Republicans interfere with the spending and laws of a local jurisdiction not their own. Pardon me for being angry, but I remind my colleagues that the 700,000 American citizens who live in the District of Columbia pay the highest Federal taxes per capita in the United States and have fought and died in every war since the Revolutionary War; yet they have no voting representation on this House floor, even on their own appropriation, and no representation in the Senate at all. These riders amount to bullying that takes unfair advantage of the District of Columbia. No wonder we are making headway on our D.C. statehood bill, but it should not take statehood.

Ms. NORTON. It should not take statehood for any district to be treated with respect and fairness. We have been successful in cleaning up the D.C. appropriation in the past, and we will be successful again. The people of the District of Columbia will not let you get away with bullying them after they have paid their Federal taxes the way every Member of this House has.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from New York, and I particularly thank her for her very cogent remarks and wish to associate myself with those remarks in every sense of the word; and I say so to the good lady from the State of New York as the leader of the CBC task force on Federal court nominations, including the Supreme Court nomination, where I have had the opportunity to look deeply at the decisions of this nominee now serving on the court of appeals, as it turns out, for the District of Columbia, Brett Kavanaugh. I think the gentlewoman's remarks are telling in their understanding of the extreme damage he would do--and I must add not only to African Americans, but to the rule of law as we have known it. I rise to indicate that the Congressional Black Caucus stands in strong opposition to the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and we will be doing all we can to keep that nomination from proceeding to the floor of the Senate. We do have two members of the Congressional Black Caucus on the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, and we are working closely with them as well. We in the Congressional Black Caucus are not the only Members of Congress opposed to this nomination, but we represent those Americans who have been disproportionately dependent on a fair Supreme Court. African Americans have always been a minority group in our country. For that reason, from slavery on to the days of discrimination in the 19th and 20th centuries, the African American community has been particularly dependent on the courts of the United States to protect them from unequal treatment by the majority. We have had every reason to know that, if we are in the hands of the partisan majority, given 400 years of history, we have no protection. African Americans are disproportionately dependent on an objective Supreme Court. Now, that doesn't mean a Supreme Court of our choosing, but a Supreme Court that is open to all points of view and capable of seeing beyond partisanship. Brett Kavanaugh is not that nominee. We know so because he has perhaps the longest record of opinions of names submitted to Republicans for review. The D.C. circuit, which is the federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which happens to be my district, has been a circuit where Kavanaugh has been very mindful of the Supreme Court. I say that because he has so often written in dissent from his own colleagues on a Republican Court that it has been as if he were trying to write his way onto the Supreme Court. Remember Kavanaugh's background. He started his career as a political operative in the Bush administration, and he has brought that extreme partnership, as a political operative, straight into the D.C. circuit. We are not asking the Senate for a nominee of the kind we would have chosen. That is not our demand. But because this is the most partisan Congress since the Civil War, I believe we are within our rights in asking for a Court that would be a stabilizing influence so the American people could see that not all is lost because there is an objective actor on the scene, and that actor is the Supreme Court of the United States. It is that Court which has protected us, we who are African Americans, from unequal treatment ever since Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. That does not mean that African Americans have always won at the Supreme Court level, but they have always had reason to believe that there was a court of last resort that would be open to them. We no longer would have that sense of openness to their views if Brett Kavanaugh becomes the nominee put forward in this session. We have seen no evidence that he would adhere to equal protection of the laws. I will cite some examples that illustrate where his views in his cases lead that he would not protect the long-held holding of the courts that no American can be arrested without probable cause, that he would not protect even the separation of powers, and that he would not uphold the rights of Americans to qualify for affordable healthcare. All of those notions have a disproportionate effect on African Americans, though they affect every American in the United States. Remember, Judge Kavanaugh would be appointed to a Court that already has a majority appointed by Republican Presidents. Yet, while sitting on the D.C. court of appeals, he has distinguished himself by seeking to overturn long-existing precedent, even when members of that court, also appointed by Republican Presidents, have disagreed with him. Let me give an example in an area of criminal law. We now see African Americans in the streets protesting overzealous law enforcement because African American men have been shot and killed and people go to the streets because, if you can't get justice to the courts, that is all they have. Yet, Judge Kavanaugh has suggested that it is appropriate for the probable cause standard to be more ``flexible.'' Why? Virtually no police have indeed been indicted, even given the evidence of African Americans shot down in the streets. Why do we need to narrow the ancient probable cause requirement? He has indicated that police searches without a warrant or individualized suspicion should be allowed. He has even praised narrowing the rights long ago afforded to all defendants against incriminatory statements against themselves. How deep does that go in American constitutional law? How dangerous would it be to have a justice who would question the right against self incrimination? Judge Kavanaugh's extreme views also show no respect for the fundamental right of women to make decisions about their own bodies, even though, 45 years ago, the Supreme Court itself established the right to abortion. That is a controversial right in our country, but it has withstood the test of time. Let me offer an indication from a recent decision by Brett Kavanaugh, which his own court had to overturn, that shows he has no respect for precedent. That is perhaps our chief issue with this nominee. Precedent must be respected or else we are all open to whatever Congress or the Court wants to do. A young woman, immigrant, undocumented, sought an abortion. As it turns out, she had gone through the most rigorous of requirements, those required by Texas, because that is where she entered the country. This matter came to the D.C. court of appeals, however. Judge Kavanaugh found, with the time running--remember, if abortions are to be performed, they are to be performed, according to the Supreme Court, as early as possible--found that more time was needed because she needed a sponsor, something that the Supreme Court has never required, in order for that abortion to occur. The court overturned Judge Kavanaugh's opinion. Look how dangerous it would have been. She could have gone past the 12-week, the 15-week, the 20-week deadline, which the House has approved on occasion. These are rights not to be tampered with, but he has already tampered with them on the court of appeals. This court, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia--and I won't go into all the cases--has shown that he is an executive-oriented justice. That is to say, whatever the President wants, the President gets. This is the court that looks at most administrative law decisions before they go anywhere else. Kavanaugh tried to strike down the net neutrality rule. Now, that is controversial here in Congress. But the basis he used for the courts to do it, the majority said--remember, this is a majority which our Republican President has appointed--the majority noted that the dissent was, using their words, ``misconceived'' because Kavanaugh claimed a First Amendment protection for large internet service providers never found by any court, and certainly not the Supreme Court but found to be, again, by his Republican colleagues on the D.C. Circuit, to be ``counterintuitive.'' I cannot go through each and every one of Judge Kavanaugh's decisions here, but I must point to perhaps his most extreme opinion. In a decision on the Affordable Care Act, this is what a jurist in the United States of America said, and I quote: ``Under the Constitution, the President may decline to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals when the President deems the statute unconstitutional, even if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional.'' That is bold. It says that the President may choose to rise above the law and enforce a law even if found unconstitutional. The Congress of the United States should not be willing to go along with this. I cite a case on my side of an issue but surely you can see the implications for yours. The President is supposed to make sure to ``take care that the laws are faithfully executed.'' To faithfully execute that law, you would have to enforce whatever the Congress or the Courts had found. Of course, most concerning for many is his view of the special counsel where he has opined that it may be unconstitutional, and there is every reason to believe that he may well believe that Mueller's special counsel role should be struck down. A Republican President is entitled to a Republican nominee. He is not entitled to a nominee whose opinions fly in the face of the law for the last 75 years. Judge Brett Kavanaugh's long list of opinions mark an extreme departure from established American constitutional and other law. We ask that every effort be made to oppose a man who would ignore established precedent, even precedent that his own conservative colleagues agree with, and who, I believe, cannot uphold the law fairly to protect the rights of all American citizens. We believe that the first to feel the effect of such a nominee would be the millions of Americans who are of African American ancestry whom the Congressional Black Caucus represents. I thank my good friend, again, from New York, for permitting me to go on at length about some of the precedents I have discovered that I thought would be particularly troubling, not only to the African American community, but to the American people.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Promoting National Service and Reducing Unemployment Act to address one ofthe greatest workforce tragedies resulting from today's economy--our unemployed young people--to spur economic growth and to alleviate strain on state and local governments. This tragedy is not only harming our young people, but it is also costing our government billions of dollars each year through lost tax revenue and other costs. Unemployment has reached a relative low of 3.8 percent, but my bill targets the almost two million young people who have not had a fair chance to ever use their high school and college education, which this nation has strongly urged them to obtain. What is particularly disappointing is the high unemployment rate for young people who heeded our advice to graduate from high school and college. The total unemployment rate is currently 9.1 percent for young adults ages 18 to 24, and hundreds of thousands now compete for unpaid internships wherever they can find them. By significantly expanding AmeriCorps, my bill would need no new administrative structure or bureaucracy and would allow unemployed young people to earn a stipend, obtain work experience and develop a good work history to help them secure future employment. The net cost of the expansion would be low because these young people would be providing urgently needed local services that are being eliminated or curtailed because of state and local budget cuts, such as after-school programs, tutoring and assistance for the elderly. The bill would significantly expand job opportunities for young people who have done everything possible to enter fully into the job market, but, despite their best efforts, remain unemployed in this economy. Participants receive a living allowance and are also eligible for an education award equal to the value of a Pell grant, school-loan forbearance, health care benefits and child care assistance. By expanding the AmeriCorps program, we would reduce the number of unemployed young people, provide them with work skills and experience and help cash-strapped state and local governments provide services that they would otherwise have to cut. For some time, it has been clear that policies to address the most stubborn forms of unemployment need to be targeted in order to be effective. Without significant targeting, young graduates will continue to face their first years as adults without jobs and with no way to acquire necessary work experience. They deserve better. I ask my colleagues to support this urgently needed, targeted assistance for young, unemployed Americans.