Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to The Julia West Hamilton League, Inc., which was formed in 1938 as an outgrowth of 10 women who dared to dream. Mrs. Ellen V. Johns Britain believed that women joined together as a dedicated unit might accomplish some of the things that seemed impossible at the time--achievements that contributed to the advancement of community, education, youth and self. The League was named in honor of Mrs. Julia West Hamilton, who gave unsparingly of her time, devotion and love to the causes of humanity, and was herself a participating member of the League until her death. The League was incorporated in 1971 and first led by Mary EC Gregory. The current president of the League is Mary J. Thompson. The purpose of the League is (1) to promote benevolence, cultural and education interests in the community; (2) to strive to gain new knowledge and skills of achieving better self-understanding, learning to interact more sensitively and honestly with others; (3) to encourage young people to aim early in life for education and to develop good character and find a useful place in society; and (4) to establish a monetary award known as the Julia West Hamilton Award. This award is presented to a student in each of the 14 senior high schools in Washington, DC and a four-year Julia West Hamilton Scholarship is awarded to one of the award recipients every four years. To date, the League has provided over $1 million in student awards and scholarships. The League has donated approximately $175,000 to the Hospital for Sick Children and has supported Howard University's Sickle Cell Anemia Program over the past 41 years. The League has also contributed to the United Negro College Fund, the Cardozo and Eastern High School bands and the Eastern High School Choir for travel abroad. Assistance is also provided to needy families during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. The League holds lifetime memberships with the National Council of Negro Women and the Phyllis Wheatley YWCA. In 1980, the Ellen V. Johns Britain Award was established in honor of the founder of the Julia West Hamilton League, Inc. This award is presented to a longstanding member of the League for outstanding and dedicated service. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the House of Representatives join me, on the occasion of the 80th anniversary, in paying tribute to the gentle ladies of the Julia West Hamilton League, Inc. whose motto, ``The only gift is a portion of thyself,'' and good works are worthy to be praised.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5729, the Transportation Worker Identification Credential Accountability Act of 2018. Since 2002, when Congress passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act, problems have beset the Transportation Worker Identification Credential card, or TWIC card, as it is called, a maritime security credential. Since its inception, concerns and questions about the reliability of background check information, the efficacy of fraud detection capabilities, and the relatively high cost of the credential have been persistent shortfalls that the Department of Homeland Security has never gotten right. As explained by the bill's sponsor, the Coast Guard issued a flawed final rule in 2016 for the use of TWIC card biometric readers at high- risk maritime facilities. The Coast Guard issued this rule despite Congress directing the Department of Homeland Security in 2016 to conduct a ``top-to-bottom'' review of the effectiveness of the entire TWIC program. If there was ever an example of the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing, the issuance of this reader rule was it. Considering the history and pattern of mismanagement of TWIC credentials, I agree with the purpose of this legislation. It makes prudent sense to put a hold on any new TWIC rulemaking until such time that the Department of Homeland Security completes its effectiveness review as required by Congress. Ensuring the security of high-risk maritime facilities remains a vitally important homeland security priority. If the TWIC card is not up to the task, it is best for Congress to understand why and how the deficiencies might best be resolved. On the other hand, if it is determined that the best course of action is to abandon the TWIC card, we need to evaluate alternative security measures that might fill the gap immediately. I urge my colleagues to join me and support this noncontroversial legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduced the District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment Home Rule Act. This bill would give the District the authority to appoint all members of the D.C. Board of Zoning Adjustment (Board), except when the Board is performing functions regarding an application by a foreign mission with respect to a chancery. The Board issues special exceptions, or variances, to the regulations issued by the D.C. Zoning Commission (Commission). This bill does not alter the authority of the Board. Like every other jurisdiction in the United States, the District should be free to set its own local land-use policies. As the District continues to contend with rapid population growth and economic development, it is more important than ever that the members of the Board are accountable to District residents and local elected officials. Under current law, in general, the Board consists of a representative each from the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and the Commission, each of whom may be a federal official, and three mayoral appointees, subject to D.C. Council approval. The Board has no authority over federal property. Under current law, when the Board is performing functions regarding an application by a foreign mission with respect to the location, expansion or replacement of a chancery, the Board consists of the Executive Director of NCPC; the Director of the National Park Service, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Interior, or the Administrator of General Services, as designated by the President; and the three mayoral appointees. This bill does not change this composition. This is an important step to recognize and increase home rule for the District, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump's ``corrective'' order no longer separating children from parents takes families out of the fire of separation and throws them into the inferno of unlimited detention on military bases. Thus Trump's zero tolerance policy stands, costing the government untold millions required to be spent for meals, air conditioning, libraries, private showers, medical, dental, and mental health. There are no good options when families enter the country seeking asylum, but herding them together in internment camps is the worst of those available. That is why past administrations have released the detainees with ankle bracelets and frequent contacts, with the overwhelming majority of detainees reporting back. The courts are likely to order a similar remedy. It is time for the administration to look at practices that have worked instead of inventing inhumane ones that don't.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Veterans Legal Support Act of 2018, which would allow the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide certification and support to law school clinical programs that provide pro bono legal and support services to veterans, including, among other things, assistance with disability claims and appeals and foreclosures. There are already at least 22 law schools that have clinics devoted to veterans' legal needs, including the William & Mary Law School Veterans Benefits Clinic, which serves as a national model for this idea and was the first recipient of a ``best practice'' certification from the VA. There are many other law schools, such as the University of the District of Columbia's David A. Clarke School of Law, that are interested in starting their own VA-certified clinics. More than 600,000 veterans are waiting for their disability claims to be processed by the VA. With the assistance of lawyers and law professors, clinical programs provide free legal resources to assist veterans in processing their claims. My bill would merely build on what some law schools have begun to do for the last several years. More needs to be done to sustain and increase these programs. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, a concrete measure that would assist our veterans, who have repeatedly put their lives on the line for this country.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Paul Laurence Dunbar Commemorative Coin Act. This bill recognizes one of the first influential African-American poets in American literature and benefits the Dunbar Alumni Federation, the alumni association for the Paul Laurence Dunbar Senior High School, which is historic for being the first public high school for African Americans in the United States, and which is my alma mater. Paul Laurence Dunbar was born June 27, 1872, to freed slaves, and went on to pen such classics as Majors and Minors and Lyrics of Lowly Life. He also composed the lyrics to In Dahomey, the first all-African- American musical produced on Broadway. By the late 1890s, Dunbar had become a prominent author, having had his poems published in major national newspapers, including The New York Times. Dunbar died February 9, 1906, at age 33. Paul Laurence Dunbar Senior High School was established in the District bf Columbia in 1870 as the Preparatory High School for Colored Youth. The school was renamed for Dunbar in 1916. The Dunbar Alumni Federation was organized in 2002 to provide scholarships and other financial support to students and graduates of Paul Laurence Dunbar High School. The Federation has alumni from more than 35 graduating classes, and supports the school through its scholarship efforts, community activities and other endeavors. This bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to mint 50,000 five-dollar coins, 400,000 one-dollar coins, and 750,000 half-dollar coins, with a surcharge on each coin. The surcharges will benefit the scholarships and similar activities of the Dunbar Alumni Federation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Zoning Commission Home Rule Act. This bill would give the District of Columbia the authority to appoint all members of the D.C. Zoning Commission (Commission). Currently, the Commission consists of two federal officials (the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) and the Director of the National Park Service (NPS), or their designees) and three mayoral appointees, subject to D.C. Council approval. The federal officials are members even though the Commission has no authority over federal property. Land use is a quintessential local matter in our country. Despite the D.C. Home Rule Act, which gave the District jurisdiction over its local matters, 40 percent of the members of the Commission are federal officials, who are unaccountable to the more than 700,000 residents who live in the District. The federal government would lose nothing as a result of this bill because the federal government's land-use interests in the nation's capital are protected by federal law and federal agencies. The Commission creates the zoning maps and regulations, which must ``not be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan for the national capital.'' The mayor is responsible for the local elements of the comprehensive plan, subject to D.C. Council approval. The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), which is the central federal planning agency for the federal government in D.C. and approves federal projects here, is responsible for the federal elements of the comprehensive plan. This bill would not alter the comprehensive plan process or the authority of NCPC and the Commission. This bill would immediately remove the AOC and the Director of the NPS from the Commission, and the Commission would, at least initially, consist solely of the three mayoral appointees. The District would have the authority to reconstitute the membership of the Commission through local legislation. This is an important step to increase home rule for the District, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Courts Home Rule Act. This bill would give the Council of the District of Columbia authority over the jurisdiction and organization of the local D.C. courts. The 1973 Home Rule Act (HRA) expressly prohibits D.C. from enacting any law with respect to any provision of the D.C. Code title that relates to these matters. Forty-five years after the passage of the HRA, matters involving the D.C. courts almost never come to Congress, so Congress knows almost nothing about the District's courts. Notwithstanding the importance of D.C.'s courts to District residents, the D.C. Council, which is the repository of knowledge and experience for the District's criminal and civil justice systems and the accountable body to our residents, is irresponsibly left on the sidelines while Congress remains the sole entity to correct flaws in the District's courts. Under the HRA, the D.C. Council has no authority to ``enact any act, resolution, or rule with respect to any provision of title 11 of the District of Columbia Code (relating to organization and jurisdiction of the District of Columbia courts).'' Matters in title 11 include rules of criminal and civil procedure, court administration, the number of authorized judges, the branches of the courts, the rules of jury service and admission to the bar. The bill would strike this limitation on the D.C. Council's authority. The District has never had authority over its local courts, even when it was responsible for paying for their operations. Under the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, the federal government assumed the costs for several state-level functions, including the courts. This bill would not affect the authority of the President to nominate, or the Senate to confirm, local judges. This is an important step to increase home rule for the District, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Home Rule Bridges Act. This bill is necessary to repeal a redundant 1997 federal law that makes it a crime for a person in the District of Columbia to obstruct any bridge connecting D.C. and Virginia. The District already had, and continues to have, its own local law prohibiting obstructing a bridge in the District. There is no federal law that prohibits a person in Virginia from obstructing such a bridge or a person in any state from obstructing a bridge connecting two states, and, fortunately, D.C. does not need a federal law to keep our bridges clear either. This law is as offensive as it is redundant. It harks back to a time when a private group in D.C. attempted to block the 14th Street Bridge into Virginia, although there is no evidence that D.C. authorities failed to act. The District's local criminal law prohibiting obstructing a bridge takes care of any obstruction occurring here. Under the 1997 federal law, ``whoever in the District of Columbia knowingly and willfully obstructs any bridge connecting the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Virginia . . . shall be fined not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000, and in addition may be imprisoned not more than 30 days. . . .'' Under D.C. law, a person may be subject to imprisonment and/or fines for ``crowd[ing], obstruct[ing], or incommod[ing] . . . [t]he use of any street, avenue, alley, road, highway, or sidewalk.'' The courts have long held that D.C. may repeal federal laws that predate the 1973 Home Rule Act (HRA) and apply exclusively in or to the District, but have not ruled on whether D.C. may repeal post-HRA federal laws that apply exclusively in or to the District. My bill would avoid any court challenge the District could face if it tries to repeal this 1997 federal law. This is an important step to increase home rule for the District, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Marijuana in Federally Assisted Housing Parity Act. My bill would permit the use of marijuana in federally assisted housing, including public housing and the Section 8 housing program, in compliance with the marijuana laws of the state where the property is located. Individuals living in federally funded public housing should not be denied admission, or fear eviction, for using a legal product. The use of recreational and/or medicinal marijuana is currently legal in 29 states and the District of Columbia, and over 90 percent of Americans support legalized medical marijuana. Under current federal law, the users of drugs that are illegal under federal law, including marijuana, are prohibited from being admitted into federally assisted housing. Moreover, federal law allows landlords to evict current residents for drug use. Even the Food and Drug Administration has recently supported approving certain medication made from cannabis, including Epidiolez, which would be administered as a syrup. Epidiolez is used to treat children who suffer from seizures. Notably, the drug does not contain tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the psychoactive component in cannabis. For the last several years, Congress has prohibited the Department of Justice (DOJ) from using federal funds to prevent jurisdictions from implementing their medical marijuana laws. This bill would similarly allow individuals to use marijuana in federally assisted housing in compliance with the state's marijuana laws. Under my bill, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development must also develop regulations that restrict smoking marijuana in federally assisted housing in the same manner and to the same locations as the Secretary restricts smoking tobacco in federally assisted public housing. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, like the DOJ, should not be allowed to enforce federal marijuana laws where states have taken action to legalize marijuana. The Marijuana in Federally Assisted Housing Parity Act states that a person may not be denied federally assisted housing based on the use of marijuana in compliance with the marijuana laws of the state where the property is located. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Police Home Rule Act. This bill is necessary to eliminate the President's authority to federalize the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), the local District of Columbia police department. The President has no authority to federalize any other local or state police department, and no president has tried to federalize MPD. Under the Home Rule Act, ``whenever the President . . . determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the [MPD] for Federal purposes, he may direct the Mayor to provide him, and the Mayor shall provide, such services of the [MPD] as the President may deem necessary and appropriate.'' Under the section of the Home Rule Act that would be repealed by this bill, the President may federalize MPD for a period of not more than 30 days, unless a resolution passed by Congress extending such federalization is enacted into law. Congress may also terminate the federalization at any time by enacting a resolution. This bill is necessary, even with these protections, because, under the principle of home rule, the President should not have control over the District's local police department. While it does not appear that a President has exercised this authority over MPD, this latent power is totally unnecessary, should not exist and is an affront to MPD, which has always voluntarily assisted federal authorities. MPD's first responsibility is to protect District residents and visitors, and it must always remain under the authority of the D.C. mayor to accomplish its mission. Moreover, federalization is outdated in light of current practice. MPD regularly assists the federal government as a matter of comity, not as an arm of the federal government, just as I am sure other local police departments do in the region. There are approximately 30 federal police departments under the President's control in the District. In the case of a federal emergency, the President can unilaterally deploy these federal officers, as well as the D.C. National Guard, to address it, and also request the support of our local police department, as the President would do in any other jurisdiction. This is an important step to increase home rule for the District, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, when Members attack one another on this floor, we sometimes have to apologize publicly. What is the appropriate penalty when a Presidential administration attacks children in our country? That is what is happening now at the border, as children are forcibly taken from their parents. Even if these children were being held in palatial splendor, nothing could make up for being taken from the only adult they have known since birth. Our country's policy has always been family unification. Breaking with that policy and with decency, Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions have devised a new deterrent for crossing the border to seek asylum. Says Jeff Sessions: ``If you're smuggling a child, then we're going to prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you.'' If they want to attack border crossers, the Trump administration should pick on somebody their own size.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this time on the floor to speak about making the District of Columbia the 51st State. I am not going to simply glow about how important that would be for my district, because we have found that most Americans believe we already have the same rights they do. I want to describe one of the oldest cities in the United States, a city that is bigger than two States, that is to say, has more residents than two States, more residents than Vermont, more residents than Wyoming, and about as many residents as seven States of the Union. The people I represent, 700,000 of them, are number one in taxes paid to support the Government of the United States, yet they have no representation whatsoever in that body down the hall, the Senate of the United States. In fact, I am grateful that the House understands that I should vote in committee, where most of the work is done, but when a bill comes to the House floor, even if that bill singularly affects the residents of the District of Columbia, every Member of this body, except the Member who represents the District of Columbia, can vote on that bill. That is not justice, that is un-American, and it offers strong evidence, I think, of the underlying reasons why the District of Columbia should become the 51st State of the Union. We are making progress. We have got almost all the Democrats on our statehood bill. And if there is Democratic control of the next Congress, I will seek a vote on D.C. statehood on the House floor. I got a vote on D.C. statehood when I first came to the Congress. It is time to have another vote on D.C. statehood. We have more than half of the Democrats in the Senate, and I will get all the Democrats in the House and all the Democrats in the Senate before the end of the 115th Congress. Most Members of the House come to this place knowing little about the Capital City. I don't blame them. I don't see why they should know much about it, except that it is the tourist mecca of our country; that 30 million people from around the world, including from their States, come to see the extraordinary monuments in our city. So Members shouldn't know any more about my district than I know about their districts, and yet Members come to this floor to not only vote on matters affecting my district, but on laws that would take away or overturn laws passed by the legitimate government of the District of Columbia. When Members come, I greet them, offer them help in finding housing and the rest, and that is about the end of it. So if they come to the House to vote, they don't know anything more about the city, except if they happen to stay here, and we welcome them, than they did when they walked in the door. But every Member needs to know that 700,000 Americans host them, and they need to know, when they are called upon to interfere with the local laws of the District of Columbia, they should treat our local laws the way they would have their local laws treated. I particularly speak of my Republican colleagues, who are the chief proponents of local control. They don't want the Federal Government into not only their business, but sometimes they try to get the Federal Government out of Federal business, and yet it is my Republican colleagues who are the chief abusers of what we call District Home Rule, what Americans call the right to self-government. I need to give you examples of what I mean when I say Members try to overturn our laws, and I need to say that I often am able to keep them from doing so, even without a vote on this House floor, because of the way I think through what my role is. I have got to think of a way to keep people who overwhelmingly outnumber me, obviously, and are the majority in this House, from overturning my own local laws. We have barely succeeded in doing so, but I will give you an idea of what I mean. I should begin by saying that because this is a city, a big city, that its laws would be more progressive than in many other parts of the United States. For example, the District of Columbia government has passed a Death With Dignity Act. This is a controversial bill. Six States have passed it, including States represented by the Republican leadership of this House. It is a bill that allows a person to take his own life with minimal help from a physician. It is very controversial. Six States have passed it; so has the District of Columbia. It is nobody's business but theirs. I have kept this law from being overturned, but I have had to fight to do so for at least three years. Let me give you another example: the Local Budget Autonomy Act. Why would there be a Local Budget Autonomy Act? Everybody knows that if you levy your own local taxes, no one should have anything to do with that, but the District of Columbia does not have the right to have the final say on its own budget, because any Member of the Congress can try to overturn the District's budget. Are they interested in the budget? Do they try to overturn the budget itself? No. But when the budget comes here, Republicans use it as a vehicle to overturn laws that they don't agree with, and that is why our budget is here, this budget that was raised by the residents of the District of Columbia, this local budget. In order to keep our budget from coming here at all--what is it doing here--a referendum overwhelmingly passed by residents called the Local Budget Autonomy Amendment Act essentially said, that is it. It shouldn't come here. The House has tried to repeal that at least three times. I have saved it from being repealed largely from marching over to the Senate. Perhaps the most persistent attempt on the part of the Congress are efforts to wipe out the District's gun safety laws. It is a big city and, yes, big cities are where you have most of the gun violence, so the District has tough gun safety laws. And yet, every single year I have to protect our gun safety laws from Members of Congress who are not answerable, are in no ways responsive, to the people of the District of Columbia. Our residents can't vote them out of office. They can vote only me out of office. They can't touch them. If that doesn't fly in the face of American democracy, I can't tell you what does. Senator Marco Rubio has introduced a bill to wipe out all of our gun safety laws since 2015. I have saved D.C. gun laws from being eliminated. But Senator Marco Rubio from the State of Florida, where the Parkland youngsters are, who have taken nationwide their own campaign to get this Congress to pass sensible gun laws. Yet Senator Rubio, aided by Representative Tom Garrett of this body, would eliminate all of the District's gun safety laws, including the District's ban on guns in schools; including making the District of Columbia a unique exception to a Federal law called Gun-Free School Zones Act, which means you cannot have a gun within a school zone. Everybody could have that except the District of Columbia. Senator Rubio and Representative Garrett would repeal the District's ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. Assault weapons in the Nation's capital? Imagine who would be endangered if there were assault weapons here? And I do not refer to the residents of the District of Columbia alone. Anyone who visits our city will often find traffic stopped while caravans of high-level officials go by. Sometimes they will be Members of Congress. More often they will be world figures. Imagine if just anybody could have an assault weapon in the Nation's capital, particularly today. Yes, I have been able to stop it. But why should I have been put to that effort when I represent 700,000 tax-paying citizens of the United States who had already done it? I do have to show you how low or laughable these efforts can become. I have stopped a bill that prohibited my city from using its own funds to keep certain kinds of flushable products from being sold in the District of Columbia. They stop up toilets. The Member who proposed this, Representative Andy Harris of Maryland, perhaps because it is so laughable, ultimately withdrew it. We came on the House floor to expose it. But I cite the flushable wipes amendment to show these anti home rule efforts know no bounds. You might ask, well, why would Representative Andy Harris want to do this? I don't know for sure, except that there is a manufacturer of those wipes that has surfaced and, as you may know, many Members get campaign funds from people who ask them to place matters in bills. They don't ask them to put them in our appropriations, but that is what happened, and I had to get that one out. I do want to publicly thank Representative Harris for withdrawing his amendment. To give you some sense, though, of how the District of Columbia has to pay attention, not only to its own local laws and preserving them, but has to ask its Member to do what every other Member does a lot on national matters. So while I am working on national bills, during the first year of the Trump Presidency, I had to defeat 15 bills to overturn the District's gun laws. I had to block bills that would gut the public school system laws by making D.C. use its own local funds for private schools. Yet Congress has defeated an education bill that defeated amendments to an education bill that would have allowed school districts to spend its own money on private schools. They took private school vouchers out of the national bill, but a Member tried to put vouchers on the District. Defeated that one. And there are others, but I won't go down the list of them all. Understand that that work is important to my District, but it is work that no other Member has to pursue because you cannot interfere with the local laws of any other Member. At the same time, however, for example, I had and did get full funding to rehabilitate the Memorial Bridge. That happens to be important because millions of Americans use that bridge. They come to Arlington Memorial Cemetery and use that bridge to get there. They come to the Nation's Capitol to see our iconic sights, and they use that bridge. Now that was a national bill. That is the kind of bill, Federal bill, that most Members work on that they are proud of. I bring it up because that work, which as a Member of Congress I must do for the Nation, as well as my city, is quite apart from protecting the local laws of my city. Let's take the affordable healthcare act. Virginia has just signed on, belatedly, to the affordable healthcare act. I am in the national fight with most Members, certainly on my side of the aisle, to maintain that law. And we have maintained that law. In spite of President Trump's attempt to overturn it. In spite of more than 40 attempts by my Republican colleagues to overturn it. D.C. needed it, because with the ACA, 96 percent of D.C. residents are now covered by healthcare. That means virtually everybody. But in that effort I am in league with other Members on a national law. That is what I should be paying attention to, first and foremost. Another example of a national law which is important to the Nation and to me is passage of the Dream Act, to protect these children who were brought to the United States as infants or small children by their parents, who know no other country, and now face deportation because technically they, of course, are not citizens; even though they don't know El Salvador or Mexico or any other of the countries from which they would have come. Of the 800,000 Dreamers, 800 of them are in the District of Columbia, so I am like many Members who come to the floor on that issue. But that is a national bill. That is what I am supposed to do in the Congress. In our city, if somehow we could not save the Dreamers, that would be $50 million annually gone from our economy; that is how productive they are. I have had a town meeting with them. These are the most impressive young people I have ever seen speak to our residents. Mr. Speaker, could I ask how much time I have remaining.

Ms. NORTON. After you have heard all of these abuses of American democracy, you may have some understanding why I believe that the District of Columbia should become a State, and why statehood is the only remedy for the abuses that I have described. But, do not think that there are no Republicans who understand some of the issues I have described. I regret that my good friend, a conservative Republican, Representative Darrell Issa--and I say I regret, because I don't think that every Republican should be put in the same category. I cite Rep. Darrell Issa, because he was chair of a committee on which I serve, and decided to have a hearing on our local jurisdiction. He asked the Mayor to come, the chair of the City Council, and those who handle the budget. He listened and he indicated his surprise to know that the District's financial condition and reserves and its growth as a local economy, were among the best in the Nation. After that hearing, learning, for example, that our budget was the envy of the States, Representative Issa himself endorsed budget autonomy and worked tirelessly with me and with local officials, as well as Republican interest groups, to try to secure at least the autonomy over our budget; at least over our budget. These are what we call the components of statehood. So even if my Republican friends are not for statehood, there is no reason not to be or to stand against the elements of statehood. And we certainly may well get those before we get statehood itself. For example, clemency. The President has the authority of clemency over the District of Columbia. Well, he doesn't know a thing about the District and, as a result, when clemency comes out, normally the District inmates are not even included. That is a classic matter for local governments. Yes, budget autonomy is one of them. Even the District's local laws have to come here and sit for 60 days, 30 days, or for criminal laws, 60 days, to see if anybody wants to overturn these laws. This is a remnant of more than 200 years ago, when the District had no home rule, as we called it, or self-government. Of course the Congress doesn't choose to use that section, so they could get rid of this legislative autonomy because they reserve their energy for the budget. With a budget here, they use that as the vehicle to overturn the District's laws. What I think most Members of Congress do not know is that the District's local economy is one of the strongest in the Nation, and let me prove that. It has got a $12.5 billion budget. That is larger than the budget of 12 States. My district has a $1.75 billion surplus. That kind of surplus, that large surplus, almost $2 billion, is the envy of the States. My district has a per capita income higher than that of any State, higher than that of California, of Massachusetts, of New York. That is one of the reasons why the people I represent pay the highest taxes per capita in the United States. The total income of the residents of the District of Columbia is higher than the income of seven States. Its consumption, given its income expenditures, is higher than those of any State. And, of course, what we are seeing is a city that is flourishing. Its population growth rate is the highest since the 2010 Census. In fact, the District now has a larger population, as I indicated, than two other States that have representation to vote on this House floor. DC would only qualify for one vote, and Vermont and Wyoming, have two Senators as well--even with fewer residents than the number who live in the Nation's Capital. One way to understand why the residents of the District of Columbia resent being treated as second-class citizens is to understand its highest tax rate, Federal tax rate--the highest in the Nation--amounts to $12,000 per resident, more per capita than any residents of any States. Yet no matter what the bill, no matter how impacted the District is, I will not vote on that bill. What hurts more than the failure to allow the District to vote on most bills is the failure to allow the District to vote on bills to go to war. The residents of this city have fought and died in every war, including the war that created the United States of America. Please remember the slogan that the Framers and the residents threw up to win their freedom. It wasn't, ``Freedom in the large.'' It was, ``No taxation without representation.'' We ask for statehood based on the original understanding of the Founders of our Nation who were willing and, indeed, did go to war for the principle of no taxation without representation. Well, the people I represent have gone to war without a vote to go to war and without a vote upon returning from war. The sacrifices should be clear to see. World War I--and here we are talking about casualties--more than three States. World War II, more casualties from the District of Columbia than four States. And then it only goes up. The Korean war had more casualties than eight States. And, of course, the Vietnam war had more casualties than 10 States. That ought to be reason enough for the District of Columbia to be made the 51st State. More important than paying the highest Federal taxes per capita, more important than being excluded from a vote on the floor of the Senate, it is the sacrifices our residents have made for their country that speak loudest, most prophetically, about the right of residents to be treated equally. May I inquire of the time remaining, please.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, it is not as if the Congress of the United States has never understood the injustices before you. The reason I come to the House floor today is because there is turnover in the House all the time and many Members have never heard this until now. And why not? Because you don't listen to what happens to somebody else's district. You are too busy dealing with your own district. That is how we like it, and that is how we would like to make it for every Member of the House. Yes, almost 45 years ago, the House understood the injustice of what was then the case. The District had no self- government. It intermittently had some self-government in the 19th century--and may I add, that the height of that self-government was about the same as the District has now: a Delegate Member of the House and the right to local government. And who gave them that? It was the post-Civil War Congress, which was a Republican Congress. The Republicans lost their way, and they are chiefly responsible now for the District's not having what their own party understood should happen after the Civil War. They had fought a Civil War for democracy for everyone, and they, indeed, began the home rule process that was lost after Reconstruction and renewed again almost 45 years ago with the 1974 Home Rule Act. Here again in the 20th it wasn't the Democrats who were solely responsible. Yes, it was a Democratic Congress, but it was a Republican President, President Richard Nixon. He said, in signing the Home Rule Act: ``As a longtime supporter of self-government for the District of Columbia, I am pleased to sign into law a measure which is of historic significance for the citizens of our Nation's Capital.'' Remember, this is President Nixon talking, saying: ``I first voted for home rule as a Member of the House of Representatives in 1948, and I have endorsed the enactment of home rule legislation during both my terms as President.'' Then he went on to say: ``. . . it is particularly appropriate to assure those persons who live in our Capital City rights and privileges which have long been enjoyed by most of their countrymen.'' That was a Republican President and a Democratic House acting in a bipartisan way to give the District self-government, a self-government which it has handled better than most of the State and city governments since. And that is not the only example of Republicans working with us to do what almost surely will take some bipartisanship. Representative Tom Davis of Virginia worked with me on a bill that, in fact, got a vote in both houses and, indeed, we would now have in the District, a House vote if that bill had passed. I was in the minority. Representative Tom Davis was in the majority as a Republican. I regret that he has resigned from Congress to go on to higher and better things, as he saw it. He worked with me and had hearings. What he discovered was that the State of Utah, a very Republican State, had missed getting a vote it thought due that State, and Representative Davis discussed with me the possibility of pairing the District of Columbia with Utah--one Democratic vote and one Republican vote--and nobody would gain if the District got a House vote. Now, Representative Tom Davis was not for statehood, but he did not believe that we would call it the people's House without giving the residents of the District of Columbia a vote in that House. The Governor of Utah came to testify for it. The Republican Members from the House and the Senate voted for it. It was a one-to-one, and it was perhaps the best chance for voting rights, certainly, that we have had since the creation of the Republic. Well, if we got that kind of bipartisan support for at least the House vote, why doesn't the District of Columbia have a vote on the House floor as I speak? The answer is that the National Rifle Association succeeded in getting a Member to attach to the bill, in the House, an amendment that, in exchange for the House vote, the District would have had to give up all of its gun safety laws. I have just indicated to you the kinds of sacrifice that would have meant. The assault weapons ban would be gone, just to name, perhaps, the worst of them. That is an offer we had to refuse, and it is the closest we have come to equal rights as a Federal district. But it is not the closest we will ever come. We will give priority during the next Congress to budget autonomy, autonomy over our own budget; legislative autonomy, to keep our legislation from having to come to this floor. A local prosecutor--the DA who everyone associates with your local jurisdiction is not who enforces criminal law in the District of Columbia. It is the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia who does both local law, local criminal law, and, of course, Federal law. Mayoral control over the National Guard; your Governor can call out your National Guard because only he knows the ins and outs of safety when there are issues affecting the National Guard. The National Guard is usually used for things that are local in nature, such as hurricanes and flooding. The President knows almost nothing about that or about the authority to grant clemency, as I mentioned earlier in these remarks. Also, of course, control over the appointment of local judges and the operations of the local courts. Yes, D.C. courts are title I courts. What that means is that these judges who handle only local matters--local criminal and civil matters--are appointed by the President of the United States and have to stand in line to get approved by the Senate of the United States. I have simply summarized some of the hardships of not being treated as an equal jurisdiction under the Constitution of the United States and some of the benefits of citizenship that the District would obtain if such equality were indeed granted. It is true that the District has never achieved this equality, but I do not fret that it is out of hand. When the next Congress resumes, I have indicated any number of things I will pursue. In addition, if my party controls this Chamber, I will ask for a vote on the House floor. I will ask for that vote, even though I am not certain by any means that that vote would result in statehood. I will ask for that vote, because I want to put it to this body exactly what it means not to have the same rights they have. When my party controlled this House, I did not get statehood, but I was able to get what is called the vote in the Committee of the Whole. That is a vote on some business on the House floor. My Republican friends actually sued the House for allowing the District of Columbia, whose residents are number one per capita in Federal taxes, this vote on the House floor. They went to the Federal District Court, then to the Court of Appeals, but they did not have the gumption to go to the Supreme Court. So I voted for my District at least on some matters in the Committee of the Whole. And I will seek that vote, even short of statehood. I represent one of the Nation's oldest cities. I represent 700,000 residents who have overpaid their dues--have overpaid them in war, have overpaid them in taxes. We are overdue as we pursue democracy for other people around the world in assuring that there is democracy for everyone in our own country. We should begin with the residents of our own proud Nation's capital. I ask the House to think deeply about what lies in your hands, and that is not only the ability, but the obligation to make the 700,000 residents of the District of Columbia whole by making the District of Columbia the 51st State of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Angel Anderson and her store, The SpiceSuite, on becoming the 2018 District of Columbia Small Business of the Year. This distinction is awarded as part of our 21st annual District of Columbia Small Business Fair, which we are holding today at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center. This year, we are proud to honor Angel and The SpiceSuite, a store located at 6902 4th Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20012 where customers can customize spice blends and find unique products like coconut vanilla infused honey and blueberry sugar. Angel opened The SpiceSuite just two years ago as the manifestation of a dream she did not know she had, and has since cultivated it into a community staple. A D.C. native, Angel graduated from Banneker High School, and went on to earn both her bachelor's and master's degrees in psychology from Howard University. After completing her studies, she worked in education for nine years, focusing mainly on underserved communities. Angel began her teaching career at the District's Oak Hill Youth Center, eventually moving on to be a counselor and later an assistant principal at the Cesar Chavez Public Charter School. The SpiceSuite is an extension of Angel's passion for community service. She operates the store as an avenue to promote other women- owned small businesses by sharing its space with these businesses to launch and sell their products. She has offered this opportunity to over 200 small businesses to date, at no cost to them. Angel continues to employ the various platforms at her disposal to engage the public and advocate for the underserved. Our fair highlights the importance of small businesses to the District's economy. It provides critical information, counseling and resources to aspiring and current D.C. small business owners. Small businesses are a crucial lifeline in our local economy, and the District thrives because of the expanding success of small businesses throughout the District. We thank the Washington Convention Center for hosting us again this year; the workshop experts who are providing valuable information and assistance to small businesses; and, of course, all of the small business participants. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Angel Anderson, as well as in celebrating small businesses across the District. In the District and in districts around the country, small businesses continue to make indispensable contributions to our economies and communities.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce the McIntire- Stennis Act District of Columbia Equality Act, which would amend the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act (Act) to make the District of Columbia eligible for funding. The District is treated as a state under federal programs with a few exceptions, most of them simply oversights or failures to update. This legislation would rectify the exception in the Act, ensuring equitable treatment for the District and allowing the District to benefit from the important funding opportunities available under the Act. The Act provides U.S. states and territories with formula funds to support state-designated institutions' cooperative forestry research programs. The Act defines ``State'' to include Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. The District's notable, but faulty, absence from this definition makes it ineligible for grant funds that would support research at the University of the District of Columbia's (UDC) College of Agriculture, Urban Stability, and Environmental Science, a program that complements the city's ongoing forestry efforts. UDC is the nation's only urban land-grant university. We appreciate that Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam are included under the definition of ``State,'' though, unlike the District of Columbia, their residents do not pay federal income taxes. It would be particularly troubling if the District, whose residents pay the highest amount per capita in federal income taxes, which support farm and other federal programs, were to continue to be excluded. We have heard that the District may be excluded because of its lack of local timber production. However, the Act says, ``[i]n making such apportionments, consideration shall be given to pertinent factors including'' local timber production. Proximity to timber is, therefore, only one in a non-exclusive list of factors that are part of the larger analysis regarding the apportionments. Excluding the District from the definition of ``State'' merely because it is not located in an area with a timber industry runs counter to the intent of the Act. While timber production can be a factor in determining the amount of state allocations, there is no reason that the District should be excluded from the Act. We believe, therefore, that the omission of the District must have been the result of an oversight during the original drafting of the Act. However, as you can imagine, this omission has serious consequences for the District, rendering UDC ineligible for these formula grant funds. Passage of this bill would allow students and researchers in the nation's capital to take part in this important forestry program. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Courts Vacancy Reduction Act. This bill would allow local District of Columbia court nominees to be seated after a 30-day congressional review period unless a resolution of disapproval is enacted during that period. Currently, nominees cannot be seated without affirmative Senate approval. The congressional review process for nominees would be the same one used for legislation passed by the D.C. Council. It is therefore a reliable process, long-recognized by Congress. My bill is prompted by the unique requirement that judges for the local D.C. courts be confirmed by the Senate, where nominees for the federal courts, understandably, get the primary focus and priority. There is currently an urgency facing the District's criminal and civil justice systems, and the D.C. courts have raised serious concerns due to longstanding vacancies. Whether under Democratic or Republican control of the Senate, the local D.C. courts regularly face vacancy crises, which harm the operations of the judicial system in the District. Congress created the D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission (JNC) to recommend candidates, and Congress should generally defer to its judgment. This bill is a compromise, useful to all concerned, that retains a congressional role while saving the Senate time by removing the need for committee and floor action and increasing the odds that D.C. will have a full complement of local judges. Currently, there are 10 vacancies out of 62 authorized judges on the D.C. Superior Court and two vacancies out of nine authorized judges on the D.C. Court of Appeals. In the current Congress, only one judge has been confirmed. Both pre- and post-home rule, the District has never had control over the nomination and approval process of local D.C. judges. My bill would not alter the role of the JNC or the President in the nomination process. Under the Home Rule Act, the JNC recommends to the President a list of three persons for each vacancy on the Superior Court and Court of Appeals. The President must nominate a candidate recommended by the JNC within 60 days to the Senate for advice and consent. If the President fails to nominate such a person within 60 days, the JNC must nominate a recommended person directly to the Senate for advice and consent. The Senate has no obligation to provide its advice and consent. Under this bill, once a name has been transmitted to Congress, the nomination would be deemed approved unless a resolution of disapproval is enacted into law during a 30-legislative-day review period. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Scott Fleming for his 17 years of outstanding service as Associate Vice President for Federal Relations at Georgetown University here in the District of Columbia. In February 2001, Scott joined Georgetown after an extensive career in public service. During his time at Georgetown, he has helped secure crucial support for various student financial aid programs, Title VI international programs and programs managed by the school's Center for Intercultural Education and Development. In addition, he has served as a member of Georgetown's veterans support team to help increase student benefits for veterans who attend Georgetown, and has worked on legislation to protect Dreamers. Scott has also served as a faculty mentor with the Georgetown Scholarship Program, where he hosted students at his home on numerous occasions, and has participated in Georgetown's Community Scholars Program. Scott has also taught several modules at Georgetown's McCourt School of Public Policy on the issues of lobbying and government relations, and has participated in the Georgetown Summer Fellows Program as a faculty advisor. He is a former member of Georgetown's Licensing Oversight Committee and the Board of Advisors for Georgetown's Walsh Scholars Initiative. Currently, Scott serves as Georgetown's representative on the Worker Rights Consortium Board. Scott graduated with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Foreign Service from Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and received a Master's Degree in Public Policy from the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas-Austin. Prior to his work at Georgetown, Scott served in multiple leadership positions at the U.S. Department of Education, and served in various professional staff positions for Members of Congress. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Scott Fleming, a friend of many Members of Congress and staff, including many who are graduates of Georgetown University, for his many years of outstanding service as Associate Vice President for Federal Relations at Georgetown University.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, this Memorial Day Week, May 22nd to 28th, the District of Columbia celebrates the 28th annual D.C. Black Pride with its theme, ``Communities Together Building Communities.'' The multi-day festival begins May 22nd with the D.C. Black Pride Awards Reception at The Park at 14th Street and concludes May 28th with a Legendary Meatloaf Apocalypse Chapter X at the Stadium Club. In between, D.C. Black Pride includes community town halls, educational workshops, a poetry slam hosted by Mary Bowman, an interfaith worship service and various social events, including breakfast, brunch, dinner and happy hours. Various performances by musicians, dancers and artists enliven the festival. Monday, the festival's penultimate day, culminates in the main event, a Cultural Arts and Wellness Exposition, sponsored by Daryl Wilson Promotions and D.C. Black Pride at Fort Dupont Park. The D.C. Black Pride festival commenced my first year in Congress on Sunday, May 26, 1991, at Banneker Field on Georgia Avenue, across the street from Howard University. I have watched it mature from an ad hoc event to what is now widely considered to be one of the world's preeminent Black Pride celebrations. It now draws more than 42,000 participants from the United States, Africa, Europe and the Americas to our nation's capital. D.C. Black Pride fostered the beginning of the Center for Black Equity (formerly known as the International Federation of Black Prides, Inc.) and the ``Black Pride Movement,'' which now consists of 40 Black Prides on four continents. I commend Paloma Afework, Ralph Ferguson, Shannon Garcon, Gladece Knight, and Reginald Shaw-Richardson, the volunteer Advisory Board that assists Earl D. Fowlkes, Jr., C. Hawkins, Genise Chambers-Woods and Kenya Hutton with the coordination, planning, and execution of D.C. Black Pride. I also take pride in noting that this year, Earl continues his service into a third decade of involvement with both D.C. Black Pride and the Black Pride Movement around the globe. As Black Pride comes to town, I take this opportunity to inform the celebrants and to remind my colleagues of the limitations Congress has placed on the District of Columbia. Despite paying more federal taxes than 22 states and paying the highest per capita federal taxes in the United States, D.C. residents still have no full voting representation in Congress. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in welcoming all attending the 28th annual D.C. Black Pride celebration.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Reducing the Effects of the Cyberattack on OPM Victims Emergency Response Act of 2018 (the RECOVER Act), which would require the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to make permanent the free identity protection coverage that Congress required OPM to provide for 10 years to individuals whose Social Security Numbers were potentially compromised during the OPM data breaches. In 2015, OPM reported that the personally identifiable information of as many as 25.7 million current, former and prospective federal employees and contractors was stolen in two data breaches. I appreciate that Representative C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger is cosponsoring this bill. After OPM announced that it would offer identity protection coverage of limited duration and value, Senator Ben Cardin and I introduced the RECOVER Act in July 2015, which would have provided affected individuals lifetime protection and at least $5 million in identity theft insurance. Congress subsequently included a version of our bill in an enacted appropriations bill, but limited the duration of the protection. Under current law, OPM is only required to provide identity protection coverage through fiscal year 2026. Under the bill we are introducing today, OPM would be required to provide the coverage for the remainder of the life of affected individuals. The current coverage is inadequate, particularly considering that there is no limit to when the thieves (or those they have shared the stolen data with) may exploit the data. Therefore, there should be no limit to the duration of the coverage provided to affected individuals. This bill would give current, former and prospective federal employees and contractors who were affected both some peace of mind and protection. OPM failed to protect these people. It follows that the government must do the right thing to make up for its mistake. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his very special efforts for this reauthorization. Perhaps our entire committee and subcommittee are due some self- congratulations for reaching a bipartisan agreement for a long-term reauthorization for the FAA, but the lion's share of the appreciation belongs to Chairman Shuster. I thank the chairman for his leadership, especially as he is retiring from the House, and I am grateful for the considerable efforts of Ranking Member DeFazio. Mr. Chair, there was only one major disagreement, and that was, of course, on privatization of air traffic control operations. This bill includes many areas that demonstrate the importance of bipartisanship. It is almost impossible to help Democrats and not Republicans, and vice versa, when it comes to matters affecting aviation. I appreciate my own amendments in the bill addressing airplane noise, many of them embedded in the bill. And I am sure, given the complaints throughout the country, that my noise provisions, too, are bipartisan. Mr. Chair, I ask that the House oppose the Cuellar amendment. This is a special destinations amendment for San Diego and San Antonio mainly to benefit the House Members from those districts so they can fly into Reagan National Airport nonstop rather than Dulles, which is nearby, and Baltimore-Washington, which is also very close to the District of Columbia. The Congress has spent billions of dollars to expand Dulles, which is still very underutilized because it is a little further from D.C. than Reagan.

Ms. NORTON. The limit on slots to Reagan helps relieve enormous congestion there and ensures safety of one of the Nation's most crowded and critical airfields.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the 150th anniversary of St. Peter School, a National Blue Ribbon School of Excellence on Capitol Hill. St. Peter School was founded in 1868 with the Sisters of the Holy Cross for the purposes of taking a holistic approach in order to educate the whole child. Specifically, its mission states, ``St. Peter School is a family of learners serving the Capitol Hill parishes and community. The children are provided with an education that is founded on love of God and service to others, characterized by Catholic values and academic excellence, and dedicated to addressing each child's unique talents and abilities.'' In addition to its mission statement, St. Peter School is committed to cultivating a dedicated team of faculty and staff in one of the oldest continuously operating Catholic elementary schools in Washington, D.C. St. Peter School seeks to be a place in which faith becomes living, conscious and active through instruction and participation in prayer, worship, sacraments and service. The school is committed to fostering an environment that ensures that students of all faiths, races and creeds are challenged through a rigorous academic program and are taught to be considerate, contributing members of a global society. It is also important to note that St. Peter School partners not only engage in charitable works with local organizations to serve those in need in Washington, D.C., but it also engages with a sister school in Haiti so that students understand what it means to be a force of good throughout the world. I live on Capitol Hill, where St. Peter's is located, and know families who speak fondly of the school. Therefore, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the 150th anniversary of St. Peter School.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Local Task Forces on 21st Century Policing Act, to assist localities in carrying out the recommendations of the federal Task Force on 21st Century Policing and the Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, both of which have detailed the need to strengthen relations between local communities and local law enforcement. The bill would provide grants to local governments to create local task forces on 21st century policing to bring police, representatives of the community and public officials together to identify best policing practices for local police and other ways to strengthen relations between the community and police departments. No new funds are needed. Existing funds from the Department of Justice would support local governments establishing the task forces by listing these task forces as an acceptable use of Byrne Justice Assistance Grants. Given the continuing controversy surrounding police shootings of unarmed African American men, with no solutions in sight, this bill is more timely every day. The task forces, modeled after the federal Task Force on 21st Century Policing, would allow local communities to identify the best ways to create an effective partnership between local law enforcement and the communities they serve, while reducing crime, increasing trust and combating racial profiling The task forces could create a partnership to implement practical policing practices acceptable to all concerned. The creation of task forces could be an important step toward easing the tensions between local law enforcement and many communities. In addition, the task forces could serve to engage local law enforcement and local stakeholders in a transparent public problem-solving process instead of the current situation that encourages parties to choose sides.