Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the life of Oramenta Newsome, the vice president and executive director of the Washington, D.C. Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC DC), who passed away earlier this year at age 62. Oramenta served in the LISC DC office for nearly 25 years, leading the organization's charge to improve the overall quality of life for District of Columbia residents. In particular, she was instrumental in ensuring that public, private and philanthropic resources were leveraged to create an environment where all D.C. residents--especially the homeless, elderly, low-income and youth--would thrive. Oramenta came to Washington in the early 1990s. She spent several years at Enterprise Community Partners and then, in 1995, took a leadership role with LISC DC as the program was seeking to expand its impact. As one of LISC's longest-serving executive directors, she was part of a group of leaders who sought innovative ways to connect investment capital to nonprofit vision at a time when there was still great skepticism about whether the formula could bring about real progress. She was also one of the country's first African American women to guide large-scale community development work. Under Oramenta's leadership, LISC DC invested nearly $285 million in affordable housing, economic development and jobs throughout the District. Specifically, LISC DC has helped create and preserve 10,000 units of affordable housing, nine arts and cultural facilities, eight health clinics, five early childhood education centers, 11 schools and youth centers as well as nearly two dozen other businesses and community facilities that have opened their doors in underserved D.C. neighborhoods. As the economic market in D.C. began to trend upward, Oramenta strengthened LISC DC's commitment to vulnerable communities. In 2016, Newsome told the Washington Post that improving the quality of life in neighborhoods on the brink of gentrification should be a priority. Indeed, she said she wanted to ``make sure that people with modest incomes have a fighting chance to stay and remain there and enjoy all the goodies that are on the way.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating Oramenta Newsome's humble and reverent service to D.C. and to extend deepest condolences to her beloved husband of 22 years, Wallace, and her siblings, nieces, nephews, friends and admirers.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Shelley Broderick of the District of Columbia for her 20 years of outstanding service as Dean of the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law. In August 1999, Shelley Broderick was appointed Dean of the law school, after serving as interim dean since 1998. In 2011, she was named the Joseph L. Rauh, Jr. Chair of Social Justice. Shelly Broderick began her legal career as a clinical professor at the law school, and in 1999, she received the William Pincus Award for outstanding contributions to clinical legal education from the American Association of Law Schools. As Dean of the law school, she has received the Outstanding Dean of the Year Award from Equal Justice Works; the Servant of Justice Award from the Legal Aid Society; the Deborah L. Rhode Award from the American Association of Law Schools; and the highest award given for outstanding educational leadership at a historically black college or university from the Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund. During her tenure as Dean, the law school has achieved the highest level of American Bar Association accreditation; forged a memorandum of understanding with the University of Havana, a first for an American law school; and has raised more than $20 million to support endowed and other student scholarships, summer public interest fellowships and clinical programs. During her tenure, more than 2,000 diverse law students have represented thousands of vulnerable D.C. residents through the school's top ranked legal clinics. She served as chair of the UDC Faculty Senate for three years, and is a founder and participant of the D.C. Consortium of Legal Services Providers. She was appointed by the D.C. Court of Appeals to serve on the District of Columbia's Access to Justice Commission and has also served on the board of D.C. Appleseed for many years. I am particularly indebted to Shelley Broderick, who I appointed to serve on my Federal Law Enforcement Nominating Commission. The Commission made recommendations to me for candidates for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, U.S. Marshals for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the D.C. Superior Court and other critical federal law enforcement positions in the District. The Commission's recommendations were of such high quality that I was able to select exemplary candidates, and submitted all of them to President Obama for nomination. While Shelley Broderick plans to step down as Dean, she will soon rejoin the law school faculty after a sabbatical. Therefore, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Shelley Broderick for her many years of dedicated service and outstanding contributions as Dean of the UDC David A. Clarke School of Law.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, marking the signing of President Lincoln's proclamation freeing slaves in the Nation's Capital, is a local holiday in the District of Columbia. Many D.C. residents worked anyway. Activist groups in the District of Columbia, including DC Vote, brought residents here, who got more Members to sign on to our D.C. statehood bill to end taxation without representation for D.C. residents, who are number one per capita in taxes paid to support the Federal Government, but with no voting Representatives on this House floor and no Senators at all. Even more shameful, as this poster shows, D.C.'s war casualties have often outnumbered those of the States, more than 10 States during the Vietnam war, for example. D.C. residents are American citizens who have overpaid for their citizenship. It is time for Congress to pay back.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, D.C. begins commemorations of the emancipation of slaves in the Nation's Capital 9 months before slavery was abolished elsewhere in the United States. Yet, D.C. residents, 156 years later, still are not free. Congress can overturn local laws nowhere else except in the District, and collects taxes without representation. The residents of the Nation's Capital have more than paid the price for their citizenship. Most are native-born American citizens. Residents have fought and died in every U.S. war, including the Revolutionary War that created the United States of America. And D.C. residents rank number one in taxes paid to support the United States Government. We are well within our rights to ask Congress to grant the District of Columbia full emancipation by making the District the 51st State.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the 47th anniversary of the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, D.C. (GLAA) on April 26, 2018. GLAA is a valued and respected local organization long in the vanguard of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) community's struggle for equal rights. GLAA, since its founding in April 1971, has been in the business of advocating for the District of Columbia's full and equal rights and for residents' civil rights. The Alliance defended the District's landmark D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977 and also demanded the Act's broad enforcement. In addition, GLAA forcefully advocates for LGBTQ youth, seniors and consumers as well as for the rights of transgender people. GLAA especially focuses on transgender rights regarding equal treatment by the police and access to culturally competent healthcare. GLAA also builds and nurtures coalitions with other constituencies. Specifically, it educates and rates candidates for D.C. offices. GLAA also works with its coalition partners and D.C. elected officials to advance its goals and to defend the District's autonomy. More recently, GLAA worked with its coalition partners to achieve the enactment of the District of Columbia Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act, which permits same-sex couples to marry in the District of Columbia. GLAA will present its 2018 Distinguished Service Awards to recipients at a reception on April 26, 2018. The awardees include: Check It Enterprises, formerly the Check It Gang, started as a street gang 10 years ago. The gang formed when a group of LGBTQ youth banded together as a gang in response to bullying and attacks on their LGBTQ identities. The members' oppression, traumatization and victimization produced anti-social behaviors. Check It members received no positive reinforcement or encouragement until they met a mentor, Ron Moten, five years ago. Ron never gave up on them and showed them a better way. Under his tutelage, Check It founded a clothing line and opened a business in Historic Anacostia. They raised $50,000 in remodeling costs for a building, where they make and sell clothing. The space also provides a safe haven for LGBTQ youth and young adults, as well as an area for other activities and programs. In 2016, filmmakers Diana Flor and Toby Oppenheim chronicled them in the award-winning documentary, Check It. D.C. Councilmember Mary M. Cheh, who has represented Ward 3 since 2007, chairs the Committee on Transportation and the Environment. Councilmember Cheh authored the Conversion Therapy for Minors Prohibition Amendment Act of 2013 and the Death with Dignity Act of 2015. Additionally, her legislative advocacy includes measures to protect the environment, combat homelessness, punish bias crimes against homeless individuals and eliminate the statute of limitations for the prosecution of sexual assault. She fights alongside community advocates for LGBTQ issues, particularly those advocating for homeless LGBTQ youth. Councilmember Cheh also supports legislation to require individuals subject to temporary protective orders to surrender their guns and to prevent domestic violence through the creation of a Domestic Violence High-Risk Team, which is based upon a successful model in other jurisdictions. Mr. Don Blanchon, the executive director of Whitman-Walker Health is the third awardee. He guides Whitman-Walker in its commitment to provide an affirming and safe health care environment to gender and sexual minorities and other marginalized communities in the District. During his 11 years of leadership, Whitman-Walker has emphasized treating the whole person, integrating the role that advocacy and legal intervention play into that care. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring the recipients of GLAA's 2018 Distinguished Service Award and in celebrating GLAA's 47 years of contributions to the LGBTQ community here in the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Juror Pay Parity Act of 2018 to require that D.C. Superior Court jurors receive pay for jury service equal to that received by federal jurors. Currently, D.C. Superior Court jurors are paid $30 per day, and, under the D.C. Home Rule Act, only the D.C. courts and Congress have the authority to increase Superior Court juror pay. My bill would require that Superior Court jurors receive pay equal to that received by federal jurors. In the fiscal year 2018 omnibus appropriations bill, Congress included a pay increase from $40 to $50 per day for federal jurors, the first increase to federal juror pay in 28 years. My bill would give Superior Court jurors the same pay. Under the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33), Congress took responsibility for paying for the D.C. courts and most other state-like functions. The D.C. courts, however, have always been under the control of Congress, even when they were funded by the District. The Home Rule Act prohibits the District government from enacting any law regarding Title 11 of the D.C. Code. Title 11 provides that the Board of Judges of the Superior Court sets juror pay, but that the pay may not exceed the pay of federal jurors. Therefore, this bill, or action by D.C. courts, is necessary to increase Superior Court juror pay. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the No Lead in the Air Act. Although the House's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill includes my provision encouraging the use of unleaded aviation gasoline by January 1, 2023, that bill is still pending. Therefore, I introduce my bill to prohibit the use of lead in aircraft fuel by 2023. Lead exposure can have harmful effects on children as well as adults. Since 1980, the amount of lead in the air has decreased 89 percent, but while lead gas for automobiles has been banned since 1995, the piston-engine aircraft industry and airports that supply their fuel continue to use leaded aircraft fuel. Without a federal ban, they will continue to do so and put our communities and children at risk. Lead particles from airplane exhaust can fall widely during flight and there may be high concentrations of lead near airports. It is estimated that 16 million people live and three million children go to school within a half-mile of airports that sell leaded aircraft fuel called avgas. The health effects of lead in children include behavioral and learning problems, lower IQ, hyperactivity, slowed growth, hearing problems, and anemia. Lead exposure can cause premature births and spontaneous abortions in pregnant women, and adults can suffer from increased blood pressure, decreased kidney function, and reproductive problems. Seventy-five percent of piston-engined aircraft already operate safely with fuel that does not use lead. However, small airports continue to only sell leaded avgas for these piston-engine aircraft. But small airports will have to comply if the federal government bans the use of leaded fuel. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which implements the Clean Air Act, announced plans in 2010 to phase out leaded aviation fuel, but in the intervening six years we still have not seen a proposed rule. The FAA has created a task force of government and aviation industry stakeholders to study alternative fuels for piston-engine aircraft that would not use lead. With so much evidence of the harmful impacts of lead exposure, we can no longer put our communities at risk. My bill would give enough time for a full phase-out of lead in aircraft fuel--five years--by directing the FAA Administrator, in consultation with the EPA Administrator, to issue regulations prohibiting the use of leaded fuel in aircraft in U.S. airspace beginning January 1, 2023. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Rear Admiral Lawrence Cleveland ``Larry'' Chambers, USNA '52, USN (Ret.), who the U.S. Naval Academy Alumni Association and Foundation honored at an event for its 2018 Distinguished Graduate Award recipients. RADM Chambers and I share a common alma mater, Dunbar High School, where he graduated as valedictorian of the Class of 1948 and as commander of the JROTC corps of cadets. In 1952, RADM Chambers became the second African American to graduate from the U.S. Naval Academy. In 1954, RADM Chambers became a Naval Aviator and in 1959, Stanford University awarded him a Bachelor's degree in Aero Engineering. During his time in the U.S. Navy, RADM Chambers became the first African American to achieve: Officer in Charge of a Fighter Detachment--VA-22 Det R, the ``Fighting Redcocks,'' USS Princeton (CVS-37); Commanding Officer of an Attack Squadron, VA-15, the ``Valions,'' USS Roosevelt CV-42; Air Officer, ``Air Boss,'' USS Oriskany (CV-34); Commanding Officer of a Combat Stores Ship, USS White Plains (AFS-4), ``The Orient Express;'' Commanding Officer of an Aircraft Carrier, USS Midway (CV-41), ``Midway Magic;'' Commander of a Carrier Battle Group (CarGru3); Commander of a second Carrier Battle Group (Interim Commander CarGru4); Vice Commander Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR); and Flag rank as a U.S. Naval Academy graduate. In 1975, a month into his command of the USS Midway and during ``Operation Frequent Wind,'' the final helicopter evacuation of Saigon, then-Captain Chambers performed a notable act of valor. During the mission's 18 hours of ``controlled chaos,'' the USS Midway received 3,073 of the nearly 7,000 evacuees while helicopters covered her flight deck. Major Buang-Ly of the South Vietnamese Air Force crammed his wife and five children into the two-person cabin of a Cessna O-1 ``Bird Dog.'' Maj. Buang-Ly took off and followed the helicopters out to sea. He found the USS Midway, and after three attempts, dropped this note on the deck, ``Can you move the helicopters to the other side? I can land on your runway. I can fly one hour more. Please rescue me.--Maj. Buang- Ly, wife, and children.'' The admiral commanding the Midway's Carrier Battle Group ordered CAPT Chambers to tell the pilot to ditch the airplane. However, CAPT Chambers saw through his binoculars that a woman and children were on the aircraft. As a naval aviator, he knew when the Cessna's fixed landing gear hit the sea, the light land plane would flip and sink with its passengers on board. CAPT Chambers called all personnel not on watch to report to the flight deck. More than 3,000 of the 4,300 compliments came topside to carry out CAPT Chambers' order, ``clear the deck!'' The sailors heaved the helicopters blocking the USS Midway's landing area overboard into the South China Sea. He then ordered 25 knots and pointed the USS Midway into wind. Maj. Buang-Ly managed to strike a perfect deck landing in the over-loaded Cessna with no arresting hook. CAPT Chambers quickly met Maj. Buang-Ly and resumed landing more inbound choppers. In 1984, after 32 years of service, RADM Chambers retired from the Navy with more than 5,000 flight hours and 1,000 carrier landings. He then went on to work in private industry. In his civilian retirement, he continues to embody the U.S. Naval Academy's mission and values. Therefore, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing and honoring RADM Chambers for his service to our country and in commending him on being selected as a 2018 Distinguished Graduate Award recipient.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, as hundreds of thousands of our federal workers face uncertainty in wages and work, I rise along with my House colleagues Robert J. Wittman and Andre Carson to introduce a bill to clarify certain due process rights of federal employees serving in sensitive positions. Our bill would overturn an unprecedented federal court decision, Kaplan v. Conyers and MSPB, which stripped many federal employees of the right to independent review of an agency decision removing then from a job on grounds of ineligibility. The case was brought by two Department of Defense (DOD) employees, Rhonda Conyers, an accounting technician, and Devon Northover, a commissary management specialist, who were permanently demoted and suspended from their jobs after they were found no longer to be eligible to serve in noncritical sensitive positions. In 2014, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, which allowed the appeals court decision to stand. Specifically, the decision prevents federal workers who are designated as ``noncritical sensitive'' from appealing to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) if they are removed from their jobs. Noncritical sensitive jobs include those that do not have access to classified information. The decision would affect at least 200,000 DOD employees who are designated as noncritical sensitive. Even more seriously, most federal employees could potentially lose the same right to an independent review of an agency's decision because of a rule by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), which went into effect in July 2015, that permits agency heads to designate most jobs in the federal government as noncritical sensitive. The Kaplan decision undercuts Title 5, section 7701 of the Civil Service Act, which ensures due process rights for federal workers required by the U.S. Constitution. Stripping employees whose work does not involve classified matters of the right of review of an agency decision that removes them from their jobs opens entirely new avenues for unreviewable, arbitrary action or retaliation by an agency head and, in addition, makes a mockery of whistleblower protections enacted in the 112th Congress. Our bill would stop the use of ``national security'' to repeal a vital component of civil service protection and of due process. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing John Clay Smith, Jr. for his years of service as interim chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and as Dean of Howard University School of Law. John passed away on February 15, 2018, due to complications from Alzheimer's disease. My thoughts are with John's family during this difficult time. John Clay Smith, Jr. was born in 1942 just outside of Omaha, Nebraska. He knew he had a passion for law at a very early age. He moved to Washington, D.C., to work as a judge with the Army Judge Advocate General's Corps and as an associate at the law firm Arent Fox. In 1974, he joined the Federal Communications Commission as chief of the cable television bureau, but later became an associate general counsel there. John Clay Smith, Jr. was named interim chair of the EEOC in 1978. It was also during this time that he was elected as the first African American national president of the Federal Bar Association. As the first female to chair the EEOC, I served alongside John to reform it and to develop and implement guidelines related to workplace sexual harassment. Once John stepped down from his post at the EEOC, he went on to serve as Dean of Howard University School of Law from 1986 to 1988, obtaining updated equipment and increased funding for faculty members not only to raise the school's profile, but also to assist in it maintaining its accreditation. In addition, John helped raise scholarship funds for the law school. During his time at the law school, he also served as president of the National Bar Association and the Washington Bar Association. In 2004, John retired from Howard. John graduated in 1964 from Creighton University, where he paid his tuition through scholarships and part-time jobs, and graduated from Howard University School of Law in 1967, where he was class president. He later went on to receive master's and doctoral degrees in law from George Washington University. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in remembering the life and legacy of John Clay Smith, Jr. as interim chairman of the EEOC and as Dean of Howard University School of Law.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to reintroduce the Lifelong Improvements in Food and Exercise Act, authorizing a national initiative to attack a major health problem in the United States that cannot be remedied through the health care system alone. Increasing rates of overweight and obesity are now found in Americans of every age, race and other major demographic groups, and threaten the health of Americans like no other disease or condition. In fact, the key to eliminating many of the most serious health conditions is not only to reduce overweight and obesity, but also to encourage exercise of all kinds. The LIFE Act would provide $25 million to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for a coordinated national effort to reverse increasingly sedentary lifestyles and diets that are high in fat and sugar. Specifically, my bill seeks to provide the first national strategy to combat the overweight and obesity epidemic by directing the CDC to do three things: train health professionals to recognize the signs of obesity early and to educate people concerning healthy lifestyles, such as proper nutrition and regular exercise; conduct public education campaigns about how to recognize and address overweight and obesity; and develop intervention strategies to be used by the states in everyday life, such as in the workplace and in community settings. This legislation, however, meets the bare minimum for what is needed to address our most important health crisis. In 2010, estimates from the CDC National Center for Health Statistics showed that since 1980, the percentage of children who are overweight has more than doubled, and the percentage of adolescents who are overweight has tripled. The CDC also reports that Type 2 Diabetes, once considered an adult disease, is now widespread among children. The rising cost of the health care system, including insurance premiums, reflects this epidemic. Today, chronic diseases, many of which are caused or exacerbated by overweight and obesity, account for 70 percent of all deaths in the U.S., and 86 percent of U.S. medical care costs. A focused national health initiative would provide guidance to the states to engage in similar programs, as mayors of some cities have done. A national focus could lead to changes, such as full participation in high school physical education classes, which dropped from 42 percent in 1991 to 33 percent in 2005. Changes in nutrition are equally critical because more than half of all young people consume too much fat, a factor in the doubling of the percentage of overweight youth. Data also show an increase in unhealthy eating habits for adults and no change in physical activity. According to a 2017 study conducted by the American College of Sports Medicine, the District of Columbia is one of the fittest cities in the United States and, yet, even here, obesity continues to be a severe problem. Most of the obesity epidemic is exercise-and-food-related. Approximately one-fifth of District residents are considered obese. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation to mobilize the country now before entirely preventable health conditions, which often begin in childhood, overwhelm the nation's health care system.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Home Rule Non-Discrimination Act of 2018 to end the unique applicability of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) to the District of Columbia. My bill will protect the District's right to self-government, as well as LGBTQ and reproductive rights in D.C. RFRA, which provides more protection for religious exercise than the First Amendment, applies to the federal government, the D.C. government and the territorial governments, but not to state governments. As RFRA does not apply to the states, under the principles of home rule, it should likewise not apply to the District. While RFRA was designed to be a shield to protect religious freedom, it is being used, as evidenced by the Supreme Court's 2014 Hobby Lobby decision, as a sword to discriminate against the LGBTQ community and women. Members of Congress have used RFRA as a justification for trying to overturn D.C. antidiscrimination laws. Republicans have voted three times since 2015 to nullify or block the District's Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act (RHNDA), which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees and their families based on reproductive health decisions, claiming, in part, that it violates RFRA. However, it appears that no one has challenged RHNDA's legality under RFRA in court. My bill ensures that District residents are treated the same as residents of the states under RFRA. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, Marco Rubio's Florida State Senate got shocked enough by the Parkland shooting to pass a token gun safety bill. The Florida House has yet to act. Whatever Florida does, Rubio's token gun bill in Washington is belied by his pending bill to eliminate virtually all of the District of Columbia's gun safety laws. Worse, Rubio has put his D.C. bill in the Congress to raise his NRA rating for the last two Congresses. It did raise his NRA rating from B plus to A. I have managed to save D.C.'s gun safety laws, but Rubio's shamefully token responses in the Senate to the Parkland tragedy will be seen as one more act of hypocrisy until he stops meddling in the District of Columbia's affairs and withdraws his D.C. gun bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill similar to one I have introduced in five previous Congresses, the Universal Prekindergarten and Early Childhood Education Act of 2018. This bill is particularly important today because recent reports indicate that Americans are limiting the number of children they have due to the cost of child care. My bill begins the process of providing universal prekindergarten education in public and public charter schools in states that have or plan to phase in or are phasing in prekindergarten education for three-and four-year-old children. The District of Columbia has made considerable strides since I first introduced this bill, but today's bill is still needed to fill a hole in the ``Every Student Succeeds Act,'' which addresses elementary and secondary education, but ignores the prekindergarten years, the most critical years for children's brain development. My bill also seeks a breakthrough in public education by providing the initial funding for states to encourage local school districts to add prekindergarten for children at three or four years of age, whereas kindergarten programs for five year olds are now routinely available in public schools. This bill would eliminate some of the major shortcomings of unevenly available ``day care'' and, importantly, would take advantage of the safe facilities required in public schools. Unless early education becomes a necessary part of a child's education, it almost surely will continue to be unavailable to the majority of families with children. My bill provides federal funds to states, which must be matched by at least 20 percent with the state's own funds, to establish or expand universal, voluntary prekindergarten in public and public charter schools for three-and four-year-olds, regardless of income. The classes, which would be full-day and run throughout the entire school year, must be taught by teachers who possess equivalent or similar qualifications to those teaching other grades in the school. The funds would supplement, not supplant, other federal funds for early childhood education. The unique money-saving aspect of my bill is that it uses the existing public school infrastructure and trained teachers to make early childhood education available to all, saving billions of dollars in its implementation. The success of Head Start and other prekindergarten programs, combined with new scientific evidence concerning the importance of brain development in early childhood, virtually mandate the expansion of early childhood education to all children today. Early learning programs have been available only to the affluent, who can afford them, and to low-income families in programs such as Head Start, which would be unaffected by my bill. My bill provides a practical way to universal, public preschool education for the majority of families. The goal of the bill is to afford the benefits of early childhood education to the majority of the American working poor, lower-middle-class and middle-class families, most of whom have been left out of this essential education for their children. We cannot afford to continue to allow the most fertile years for childhood development to pass, only to wonder why a child cannot read. The bill responds both to the great needs of parents who seek early childhood education, as well as to today's brain science, which shows that a child's brain development begins much earlier than had been previously understood. Considering the staggering cost of day care, the inaccessibility of early childhood education and the opportunity that early education offers to improve a child's chances of success, schooling for three-and four-year-olds is overdue. The absence of viable options for working families demands our immediate attention. My bill reflects what jurisdictions throughout the nation increasingly are trying to accomplish. The District of Columbia, for example, has achieved an extensive integration of early childhood education as part of a larger effort to improve D.C. public schools. A recent report highlighted the economic benefits of early childhood education, emphasizing its role in expanding job opportunities and decreasing the amount of money spent on programs to address teen pregnancy, crime and the like. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill to recognize and preserve the Civil War Defenses of Washington located in the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland. The defenses of Washington, including forts, unarmed batteries and rifle trenches, created a ring of protection for the nation's capital during the Civil War. This bill would redesignate the 22 Civil War Defenses of Washington currently under National Park Service jurisdiction as a national historical park, and allow other sites associated with the Civil War Defenses of Washington that are owned by the District of Columbia or a unit of state governments to be affiliated with the national historic park through cooperative agreements. This bill would also require the Secretary of the Interior to facilitate the storied history of the Civil War for both the North and the South, including the history of the Defenses of Washington and the Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864, being assembled, arrayed and conveyed for the benefit of the public for the knowledge, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The Civil War Defenses of Washington were constructed at the beginning of the war, in 1861, as a ring of protection for the nation's capital and for President Abraham Lincoln. By the end of the war, these defenses included 68 forts, 93 unarmed batteries, 807 mounted cannons, 13 miles of rifle trenches, and 32 miles of military roads. The major test of the Civil War Defenses of Washington came with the Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864, when Confederate Lieutenant General Jubal Early, directed by General Robert E. Lee, sought to attack the nation's capital from the north, causing Union forces threatening to attack Richmond, the capital of the Confederacy, to be withdrawn. General Early was delayed by Union Major General Lew Wallace at the Battle of Monocacy on July 9, 1864, and was stopped at the northern edge of Washington at the Battle of Fort Stevens on July 11 and 12, 1864. The Shenandoah Valley Campaign ended when Union Lieutenant General Philip Sheridan defeated General Early at the Battle of Cedar Creek, Virginia, on October 19, 1864. Nearly all the individual forts in the Civil Defenses of Washington-- on both sides of the Potomac and Anacostia rivers--were involved in stopping General Early's attack, and the Battle of Fort Stevens was the second and last attempt by the Confederate Army to attack Washington. Taken together, these battles were pivotal to the outcome of the war and the freedom and democracy that the war represented for this country. It is therefore fitting that we recognize these sites by redesignating them as a national historic park. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Protecting Independent Contractors from Discrimination Act to extend to independent contractors the same federal antidiscrimination protections enjoyed by employees. My bill would extend the antidiscrimination protections of the following statutes, which apply to employees, to independent contractors: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. In a Bureau of Labor Statistics 2005 analysis of the American workforce, approximately seven percent were considered independent contractors. That number has surely only grown in the 13 years since that analysis with the growth of the so-called ``gig economy.'' These workers, who often do the same work as employees, have almost none of the protections guaranteed to employees, including health insurance, collective bargaining, retirement security and even antidiscrimination. My bill focuses only on the employment discrimination, such as discrimination based on race, age and gender, from which every worker is entitled to be free. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill to provide Salvadorans who have Temporary Protected Status (TPS) lawful permanent resident status and a pathway to citizenship after five years. Of the 200,000 Salvadorans living in the U.S. with TPS, nearly 30,000 live in the Washington, D.C. metro region, the largest concentration in the nation. This bill would change the status of Salvadoran TPS holders to lawful permanent residents and allow them to apply for naturalization after five years. Deporting Salvadoran TPS holders raises unique issues because of the great number of years they have spent in the U.S. and the large number of their children who were born in this country and are American citizens. The Trump Administration's callous and unnecessary decision to end TPS for Salvadorans requires immediate pushback. I am also pleased to be a cosponsor of the American Promise Act (H.R. 4253), which would protect from deportation all individuals currently receiving TPS or Deferred Enforced Departure. My bill would begin the effort to protect from deportation Salvadorans who have lived here for nearly two decades and have made long-term contributions to our region and to the nation. I urge its adoption.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both sides for the bipartisan way in which this bill has proceeded. Today, the House is doing no more than bringing itself in line with what we have long required of the public sector and Federal agencies. When I became chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the late 1970s, sexual harassment was not even recognized as a form of employment discrimination. We remedied that with sexual harassment guidelines, later ratified by the Supreme Court. In drawing the sexual harassment guidelines, it never occurred to us that Congress would adopt special procedures for themselves, preferential to Members and prejudicial to employees. The antidiscrimination statutes typically require some kind of conciliation before moving forward to avoid excessive litigation, but the current process creates multiple steps and time frames that exhaust complainants and deter resolution. It takes courage to file a sexual harassment complaint because most are unwitnessed and they are difficult to corroborate. The most important provisions of this bill, I believe, are the provisions for legal assistance to complainants, which Members have long had, and personal liability for sexual harassment lying with the Member, not the taxpayers. This bill marks the Congress holding itself accountable to the public. However, it is another focus on high-profile workplaces. I ask the House to move next to the workplaces of America where the average woman and man works--hospitality, factories, offices, retail, and the like. Increasingly, we find sexual harassment is still widespread. Therefore, I hope the House will pass my bill to create a national commission to hear from ordinary workers so that the average worker gets our equal attention and equal time. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the sponsors of this bill and for this bipartisan effort.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Ensuring Full Participation in the Census Act of 2018, which would prohibit the Census Bureau (``Bureau'') from including questions on the decennial census about citizenship, nationality, or immigration status. This bill is essential because the Department of Justice recently wrote to the Bureau requesting that it ``reinstate on the 2020 Census questionnaire a question regarding citizenship.'' From 1970 to 2000, this question was sent to only approximately 16 percent of the population during any decennial census through the so-called ``long- form.'' However, the long-form system with that question was dropped from the census and replaced with the current American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is sent to approximately 3 million people annually on a rotational basis, instead of just with the decennial census, and allows the Bureau to get the necessary information on citizenship, without asking every respondent during the decennial census. Asking questions about citizenship status to every American through the decennial census has not been done in almost 70 years because it would only discourage people, largely in minority communities, which are already underrepresented in the census, from participating in the census. The ACS was created to make the decennial census simpler for American citizens to complete, thus encouraging a higher and more accurate participant rate, and to preserve privacy. Adding questions back into the decennial census about citizenship would defeat this purpose of the ACS. The representative sampling provided by the ACS is more than sufficient to determine citizenship statistics within the United States. We must ensure that all individuals are counted in the decennial census, thereby providing accurate allocation of federal funds and representation in Congress, not reduce participation by already underrepresented minorities because they fear answering questions that are already addressed elsewhere. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Low-Wage Federal Contractor Employee Back Pay Act of 2018 to grant back pay to federally-contracted retail, food, custodial and security service workers who are furloughed during a federal government shutdown this fiscal year (fiscal year 2018). This bill applies to all three branches of the federal government. After the 2013 government shutdown, federal workers received back pay, but not federal contract workers. While I believe that all federal employees and federal contract workers should receive pack pay after a shutdown, we know that we cannot get Congress to make whole all who are hurt by a shutdown. My bill focuses specifically on low-wage federal contract workers, some of whom work here on the Capitol grounds providing Members of Congress and congressional staff with daily services, because these are the workers most likely to be irretrievably hurt by lost wages during a shutdown. Many federal contract workers earn little more than the minimum wage and receive few, if any, benefits. While some are unionized with a little better wage, all are the lowest-paid workers in the federal government and should not be punished because Congress has failed to do its job to keep the government functioning. Congress, historically, has provided back pay to federal employees, who often work in the same buildings as these low-wage contract workers, furloughed during government shutdowns--but not low-wage contract workers. However, both groups of workers deserve to be made whole after these shutdowns. I recognize, of course, that contract workers are employees of contractors, but the distinction between federal workers and, at least, the lowest-paid contract workers, who, for example, keep buildings clean, fails when it comes to a deliberate government shutdown. Unlike many other contractors, those who employ low-wage service workers have little latitude to help make up for lost wages. Low-wage, federally- contracted service workers can least afford the loss of pay during a shutdown and should not have to go to work every day while everyone else in their federal buildings likely received back pay. The nation's capital is the high-profile home of the federal government's complicity with contractors who pay low wages through leases and contracts with federal agencies. At least this legislation would provide some parity to their low-wage federal contract workers. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Medicaid Reimbursement Act of 2018, the seventh time I have introduced this bill. My bill would increase the federal government's share of the District's Medicaid expenditures, known as the federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP), from 70 to 80 percent. The District, a medium-sized American city, should not pay more than other large cities. For example, in 2012-2013, New York City, the jurisdiction that powers the economy of New York State, contributed 20 percent of the state's Medicaid costs, while the state paid 33 percent, less than the District's federally mandated 30 percent contribution. When the District faced financial difficulty as the only city to pay for state functions, Congress, with the District's consent, passed the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (Revitalization Act), which transferred from the District to the federal government the costs and/or operations of several state functions, including prisons, courts and offender supervision. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which included the Revitalization Act, statutorily set D.C.'s FMAP at 70 percent. The District's financial crisis was largely the result of the District's uniqueness as the only city responsible for paying for state functions, while the federal government also imposed unique revenue limitations on the District. All of the revenue limitations remain. Congress recognized that state costs are inappropriate for a city to shoulder, though the District has continued to carry many of these burdens like a state. Medicaid is a joint federal-state program. The FMAP statutory minimum is 50 percent and the maximum is 83 percent. Local funds may constitute up to 60 percent of a state's share. The FMAP formula is based on a state's per capita income relative to the national average, and the higher a state's per capita income, the lower the FMAP. If the District operated under the FMAP formula, as it did prior to the Revitalization Act, the federal government would pay only 50 percent of D.C.'s Medicaid expenditures. The District, a city with no state to contribute to it, must alone absorb the state portion of Medicaid. Thus, the District pays for 30 percent of Medicaid, more than any U.S. city. Considering the difference in the size of its tax base, the District should certainly contribute no more than New York City's contribution to Medicaid. Therefore, my bill would raise the federal contribution to the District's Medicaid program to 80 percent, equal to that of New York City. On December 21, 2017, Representative Morgan Griffith introduced a bill (H.R. 4709) that would blow a massive hole in the District's budget by reducing the FMAP for D.C. from the current 70 percent to 54 percent. Under the bill, beginning in fiscal year 2020, the federal government would pay the higher of the FMAP formula or a FMAP fixed percentage that decreases until it reaches 54 percent in 2027 and thereafter. This Griffith bill demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the uniqueness of D.C.'s structure and economy and the intent of the Revitalization Act. I will fight to defeat this backwards bill. In 1997, a formula error in the Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital allotment reduced the 70 percent FMAP share, and, as a result, the District received only $23 million instead of the $49 million it was due. I was able to secure a technical correction in the Balanced Budget Act of 1999, partially increasing the annual allotment to $32 million from fiscal year 2000 forward. I appreciate that, in 2005, Congress responded to our effort to get an additional annual increase of $20 million in the budget reconciliation bill, bringing D.C.'s Medicaid reimbursements to $57 million, as intended by the Revitalization Act, although this amount did not reimburse the District for the years the federal error denied the city part of its rightful federal contribution. In conclusion, this bill would treat the District just like the federal government treats other large cities when it comes to Medicaid reimbursement rates, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Federal Employee Short-Term Disability Insurance Act of 2018, which will help provide financial relief for federal employees who have a short-term injury or disability, become pregnant, or develop a pregnancy-related illness. This bill will offer federal employees short-term disability insurance at no cost to the federal government. Employees will be responsible for 100 percent of the premiums, and will be able to receive disability insurance benefits for up to one year, which would replace a portion of their lost income due to a non-work related injury or illness or pregnancy. These benefits will be particularly beneficial to ensure that our federal employees, who do not yet enjoy paid maternity leave, are able to utilize the 12 weeks of unpaid maternity leave permitted by federal law while continuing to pay their bills, buy groceries and make their mortgage, car and other loan payments without having to deplete their retirement or other savings accounts. Too many federal employees do not take advantage of federal unpaid maternity leave because they have no way to replace the lost income. I decided to investigate how we could provide short-term disability insurance for federal employees after learning that many of them already buy short-term disability insurance as individuals in the private market at high individual rates. Although federal employees have good health insurance, federal health benefits do not replace lost income if employees are unable to work. Moreover, while federal employees may have available sick or annual leave days, they may not have enough such days to pay the bills if they have to be out of work for an extended period. Although there are long-term disability options for federal employees who become permanently disabled, federal employees do not qualify for such benefits until they have worked for the federal government for at least 18 months. My bill does no more than put federal employees in the same position as their private-sector counterparts, who often have access to disability insurance through an employer at group rates. This bill will not allow participating insurance companies to exclude persons based on preexisting conditions. Because of the federal government's purchasing power, this bill will provide these benefits at a more competitive rate than is available if an employee sought such insurance as an individual, as many do. According to the Social Security Administration, a 20-year-old worker has a one-in-four chance of becoming disabled by retirement age. The majority of disabilities are not caused by major accidents, but by injuries or illnesses, such as back injuries or cancer, according to the Council for Disability Awareness. There is every reason to allow our federal employees to take advantage of the federal government's group rates to obtain the most reasonable price if they choose to purchase short-term disability coverage on their own at no cost to the federal government. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both of my friends for their work on this bill, and I want to thank Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop, who is a cosponsor of this bill, for his support and leadership of this legislation, as well as Ranking Member Raul Grijalva, who has also supported our efforts. I also want to thank Oversight and Government Reform Chair Trey Gowdy and Ranking Member Elijah Cummings for their support and for moving this bipartisan legislation through their committee as well. So you see, we have gone through two committees, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased and grateful to Senator Lisa Murkowski, chair of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which has jurisdiction over the bill, who has introduced the Senate companion of this bill. Our bill is noncontroversial, as you have heard, Mr. Speaker. It would only clarify that the District of Columbia has the authority to enter into cooperative management agreements, called CMAs, to maintain and invest in National Park Service properties in the city. There are many such properties, we are grateful to say, in the District of Columbia. NPS already has the authority to enter into these agreements with States, and I believe with the District of Columbia, but the better part of valor was to make sure that that was understood. Our bill would simply provide the District with the same opportunity to work collaboratively with the NPS as States and cities already do. NPS is the steward of many of the country's most beautiful natural wonders, but they are uniquely responsible for most of the small urban parks in the District's neighborhoods, as well. Given NPS' limited budget and resources, we should encourage local jurisdictions to work with NPS to make sure that our national parks are properly cared for in the way this bill incentivizes. The city already has plans to enter into a CMA with the National Park Service to assume operational jurisdiction of Franklin Park. This park is located in downtown D.C., right in the center of town, but it has seen better days. The city plans to work with the Downtown Business Improvement District to transform the park to its former glory by ensuring regular maintenance and providing amenities such as food, gardens, and other services. As the city's downtown core has grown to include more housing, businesses, and workers, the need for green space also has grown. The city's plans for Franklin Park are a model of what can be done when local jurisdictions get creative about protecting and improving the Nation's parks. Mr. Speaker, I hope Members are taking this bill as a model for what can be done if they have parks. Perhaps the park for this bill would not be as easily patterned. But there are many small parks that are near local businesses. Local businesses do not thrive when green space is in poor condition, so we did not find it difficult to get the business community around this park to partner with the District of Columbia to bring it up to what a park should look like in the center of the city. The National Park Service has a backlog that has been described by my friend on the other side, so we cannot expect the Park Service, even if it had the most robust funding appropriation here, to get to many of our parks very soon. What works here can work throughout the United States. My bill is, of course, a win for my city, but it is also a win for the Federal Government, and it is a win for the more than 30 million visitors who visit the District of Columbia every day because it is our Nation's capital, and, of course, it is a win for the surrounding jurisdictions because this park is so centrally located in this region. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa) for yielding time to me.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening to commemorate 44 years of home rule. The Home Rule Act was signed by President Richard Nixon on Christmas Eve 44 years ago after the Home Rule Act was passed by a bipartisan vote. Although it was a Democratic Congress, I think it is worth noting what President Nixon said in his signing speech. I am going to quote a few of his sentences: ``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. 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 the privileges which have long been enjoyed by most of their countrymen.'' The bill enjoyed bipartisan support throughout those congressional deliberations. Mr. Speaker, surely we can get back to that moment. The District of Columbia is proud and pleased that it has been steeped in American history ever since the site of the Nation's Capital was chosen by George Washington himself. We are proud to be not only hometown D.C., but the Capital of our country. So this evening, I want to speak about those two roles and about the role of Congress as we move past December 24, 44 years ago--1973--to today, when D.C. residents have every reason to believe that our country is ready and overdue for D.C. statehood itself. Now, my Republican colleagues understand fully our role as the Nation's Capital. They understand it because they welcome their own constituents, the tourists who come here. There are something upwards of almost 20 million. Many of them come to their own congressperson's offices first. But Republicans often dissolve the District's role into their role without making the appropriate distinction. Now, I appreciate it is not easy to understand a jurisdiction that has a double identity, a hometown identity and a Capital identity. No, we are not schizophrenic here. So let's discuss this evening what this means. I want to discuss it in part because the inevitable turnover in the Congress means that I should come to the floor and explain this dilemma of our creation periodically. The first thing we want to do is to avoid the slander that the Framers of our Constitution, the Founders of our country, meant to create a Capital City whose residents were not the equals of residents everywhere in the country, because if that had been the case, you wouldn't have had the Capital in the first place. The Capital was created from two jurisdictions, Maryland and Virginia, where residents had the right to vote and where they had every single right of American citizens. Those two States were convinced to give the territory that is now the District of Columbia for the Nation's Capital. They were not about to give up their votes in the Capital and did not. Isn't it interesting, during the transition period, the Representatives from Maryland and Virginia continued to vote as they always had and continued to be recognized in their own jurisdictions, all the while, for a 10-year period, when the land was, in fact, being transferred to become what is now the District of Columbia? The relationship that the District has to the Federal Government, to the Congress of the United States, is an accident of history. It is an anachronistic accident that you would have thought would have been put aside within a few years after the District became the Nation's Capital in 1801. During the Revolutionary War when the Capital was Philadelphia, Revolutionary War soldiers marched on the Capitol, then in Philadelphia. They wanted their pensions, and they wanted funding. When the Founders saw these men marching on their Capitol, confusion reigned. Whom to turn to bring order? Who was going to protect the Capitol? Was it Philadelphia? Was it Pennsylvania? There certainly weren't any Federal police as yet. So what developed was fear that the Capital might find itself with that dilemma wherever it was located. Of course, that is not the case. The District is protected by 31 Federal police forces, and the D.C. National Guard and from the Capitol Police to the Park Police. I won't even name them all, there are so many of them. That is not to mention, and I already have said, of course, the National Guard, and if necessary, the Armed Forces of the United States. Remember, we are talking about a Federal Government in formation. We can understand that mistake then. What we cannot abide is that mistake being part of the denial to American citizens the same rights that others enjoy. Protection of the Federal sector is certainly not an issue, or the Federal sector and the Capital itself, more than two centuries later, is not an issue. But what should also not be an issue is that anybody, any resident, any American, would pay taxes and not be represented on this floor and in the Senate. As I stand here this evening, I represent almost 700,000 American citizens who have been put precisely in that position though--and this is a number to be remembered--they are number one per capita--number one--in taxes paid to support the Government of the United States. Thus, one of the oldest U.S. jurisdictions, the District of Columbia, is the most--indeed, the only--unequal jurisdiction, that pays taxes without full representation. To be sure, I vote in committee, and everybody knows that in the committees is where the primary work is done. But imagine the insult to the people I represent who pay huge taxes--$12,000 per person every year--that matters come up on this floor including matters affecting them, and nobody whom they have voted for can represent them on this floor. The D.C. budget was just in that continuing resolution that passed. What is it doing over here? Nobody in Congress looked at the D.C. budget. Nobody in this body except me would know what to do with the D.C. budget. But it has to come here to be passed along with the Federal budget. This is form without substance, Mr. Speaker. The sole reason that the D.C. budget comes here is for Members to try to overturn some of D.C.'s laws that they happen to disagree with. But, in a Federal Union, you can pass your laws. I don't like your laws, but you can't do anything about my laws--except if it is the District of Columbia. So I think I ought to call the roll on what the District has to abide from Members of this body and the Senate and why, on this 44th anniversary of the Home Rule Act, the District of Columbia is seeking to become the 51st State. Let's take guns. Senator Marco Rubio from Florida and Representative Tom Garrett from Virginia have a bill to eliminate all the District's gun laws. It hasn't passed, and most of the bills I will speak of are pending but won't pass, because I have to spend a good deal of my time not only working affirmatively for what the District of Columbia wants, but for keeping bills like this from being passed. Imagine your Nation's Capital as a city where anybody can have a gun. The most controversial figures in the world come to your Nation's Capital. They eat in our restaurants. They stroll in our streets. You sometimes see that police stop traffic to let their cars pass in the street. We keep this City as safe as we can for ourselves, the 700,000 or so who live here, but also for the millions of people who come to do business or to have leisure or to see their iconic monuments. Representative Tom Massie from Kentucky has introduced a bill. We were able to keep it from being passed. But imagine this bill that would say that the District of Columbia had to recognize any and every concealed carry permit as long as you had it from another State. Some States have very strong concealed carry requirements. Others are very lax. Whatever your State has, just bring it into the District of Columbia. Mind you, this body, this Congress, my Republican colleagues have seen to it that you can't bring a gun into this Chamber. They want to be protected here, but they don't want to protect even their own constituents in the streets of the District of Columbia and in the hotels and restaurants of the District of Columbia. Senator Ted Cruz from Texas and Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina have introduced a bill that would require the District of Columbia to use its own funds to send children to private schools. All you have to do is come and ask the District for it. There have been bills on this floor to allow private school vouchers--none of them have ever passed--but here come two Members wanting the District to give our local funds to anybody who wants to go to a private school. Are you joking? I am standing here to say that will never pass as long as I have anything to do with it. Senator James Lankford from Oklahoma and Representative Brad Wenstrup from Ohio have introduced a bill to wipe out the District's death with dignity law. That bill was actually passed in committee. It didn't get to the floor I think because there are six States that have such laws and two of them are States of our Republican leadership. This is a controversial bill, but other States have similar laws. It allows people to take their own lives if they follow a very strict protocol. You don't like it here? Well, you don't live here. You don't pay taxes here. President Trump's budget also had this provision. Again, these are pending, and I am telling you that most of them will not pass. But that is because I have had to fight them tooth and nail to keep them from passing. That is unfair to the District and it is an unfair use of my time. The Local Budget Autonomy Act that passed by 83 percent of the voters in the District of Columbia to keep our own local funds--we raise almost $8 billion on our own--from coming here for no purpose except to attach amendments to overturn our laws. The Local Budget Autonomy Act still stands, but Congress has continued to appropriate the budget. ``Appropriate'' means simply pass it without looking at it, when it comes to the District of Columbia. Congress has not repealed the Local Budget Autonomy Act. I will stand firm to keep that from happening. We have been able to overcome attempts to overrule a D.C. law passed to protect private reproductive decisions. The District passed a law that prohibits discrimination within the District--it has nothing to do with the Congress--against any family because of the reproductive health choices of family members. What am I doing, what is Congress doing, what is the District doing even knowing what your reproductive choice is? What kind of Congress that believes in local control would so intrusively insert itself into such private matters? Here is another that was almost laughable. It is a wipes labeling bill. Representative Andy Harris from Maryland offered--and I thank him for withdrawing it--an amendment at markup. Representative Harris is a member of the Appropriations Committee. He would have prohibited the District from using its own funds to keep certain kinds of non- flushable products from being sold in D.C. Pardon me, but what is Representative Harris doing in our toilets and sewers? To his credit, he did withdraw his proposed amendment. It was important to the District because these non-flushable materials stop up sewers. They are our sewers. It is our town. Stay out of our business. The marijuana matter. First, Congress tried to overturn the District's law that enables possession of a couple of ounces of marijuana. I was able to find a flaw in the proposed language. So the marijuana law still stands. But Congress keeps D.C. from commercializing marijuana, as is done in several States. I think there are eight States. It keeps D.C. from regulating marijuana further. That is dangerous. D.C. ought to be able to regulate marijuana to keep it out of the hands of children, for example. The interference of this body in the affairs of a local jurisdiction about which it knows nothing is not only outrageous on its face, but yes, it can be dangerous. The abortion rider or amendment comes annually. It keeps the District from spending its own local funds on abortions for low-income women, although there are upwards of 17 States that use local funds for abortions because they have the autonomy that we seek. Then, at the last minute this year, there was something that Representative Steve King decided that he had to do. You see, I think when Members intrude in D.C. affairs, they must not have enough to do, and I am calling on their constituents to watch them. If you have a Member that does what--and here I am going to indicate this one shortly, but the ones I have just spoken of--if they have a Member that spends his time writing laws about someone else's jurisdiction, they ought to call him to account. Representative Steve King is from Iowa. He introduced a bill that would make it a Federal crime to commit violence within the District in connection with a legitimate labor dispute. Well, maybe it ought to be a crime and there may be some Federal legislation that deals with this matter nationwide, but if not, and it takes place within the District of Columbia and there is a legitimate labor dispute and there is violence, we have got enough cops to take care of that, Representative King. We do not need this to be a Federal crime in D.C. alone. So, after calling the roll on those proposed anti-home rule provisions, let me indicate most of them I have been able to keep off of the D.C. appropriations bill, the only way they get them passed. It would be very difficult to get them passed by coming here, get the votes, and then go to the Senate and get the votes. So Members try the easy way: just attach it to the D.C. appropriations bill that should not be here in the first place. The budget matter really does gall us. More than 7 in 10 Americans believe that the District of Columbia should control its own budget. That is what this board graph shows. More than anything else, the American people guard their own money. That is why this is so important. Republicans pose as the champions of local control. In fact, they want the Federal Government out of much of its own Federal business and let the States and the localities handle it. How could they then abandon their cherished principles when it comes to the Nation's Capital? Look at these numbers, red and blue on this chart. The numbers show that Democrats and Republicans believe D.C. should control D.C.'s budget, slightly more in red or Republican States. I think numbers like that show that what I am saying about local control and about equality in this body represents the views of the American people. I defy anyone in this body to show differently. Ultimately, we recognize on this 44th anniversary of the signing of the Home Rule Act that there is no substitute for statehood. I should mention that Congress experimented with home rule for some time before the Home Rule Act was finally passed in 1973. It gave D.C. home rule in 1820. Sometimes it would take it back, and then try again. Imagine living in a city where they can take back your local control. To their credit, after the Civil War, the Republican Congress gave D.C. home rule and a Delegate. I am called a Delegate and a Congresswoman. They gave D.C. home rule. That version of home rule is precisely what D.C. has today. The 1973 Home Rule Act essentially is a replica of the home rule given to D.C. by the Republican Congress after the Civil War. How did we lose it? The Democrats, controlled by Southerners, took back home rule after Reconstruction and left the District for 100 years struggling to get back the self-government that the Republican Congress had given the District after the Civil War. This all started with Republicans. It ended with the Home Rule Act, Richard Nixon, and bipartisan support in the Congress. There is no substitute for being equal to the States. You can't have some second class citizens in the United States today, not in 21st century America. We are seeking the major elements of statehood, even before we get statehood. For example, the District of Columbia government has actually shut down when the Federal Government is shut down, even though the D.C. budget is balanced and nobody in the Congress has even looked at it. I have now been able to get a bill every year that allows the District to stay open even if the Congress closes the Federal Government down. We don't know what will happen over in the Senate even today. We have just passed a continuing resolution--pitiful, though it was--to keep the government open for just a few more weeks. That passed this House. It has to pass the Senate. I can't take the chance that the District will close down for no reason except that the Congress doesn't know how to take care of its own business. I was finally able to convince the Congress to extricate the District from their fights to keep open, whatever you do to us--and you certainly haven't extricated us altogether because our budget still comes here. But you certainly don't mean to close down a big city like the District of Columbia, its budget, which handles vital matters like the police and keeping order. I don't mean to say that all Republicans have failed to see this. My hat is off to Representative Darrell Issa, who headed the committee that has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. He called witnesses from the District of Columbia--the mayor, the city council chairman, the chief financial officer--on a routine hearing since, yes, Congress can do that. It rarely does. He heard-- even more important, he listened to--their testimony. And when he heard these officials from the District of Columbia testify about the financial condition of the District of Columbia, its reserves, that its growth was among the best in the Nation, Representative Issa--listened. Maybe you don't think Members of Congress are always listening to your testimony. He was listening to this testimony. Because after hearing that testimony, Representative Issa from California endorsed D.C. budget autonomy, and he has worked tirelessly with local officials and with me to secure the autonomy of the District's budget so it wouldn't come to Congress. I haven't asked him, but he may not be for statehood, and I doubt that he is. He is a Republican. But I think he understands, perhaps better than most of his colleagues, that no one has any business, in a Federal public handling somebody's local budget in this Chamber, and I will be forever grateful. I want to say my thanks, as well, to former Representative Tom Davis, who resigned from the Congress a few years ago, and was instrumental in helping the District get votes for a vote for D.C. in the House and in the Senate. That bill, the D.C. Voting Rights Act, actually passed the House and passed the Senate. So why don't we have at least the vote in the House now? The reason is that the National Rifle Association convinced some Members to place an amendment that would have wiped out all of the District's gun laws; and, therefore, the residents of the District of Columbia, after helping me for years to achieve their first vote on this floor, had to leave that vote on the table. I will be forever grateful to Representative Tom Davis for his help. Now, what kind of jurisdiction are we talking about? It is very important for us to remember that we are talking about a city with a $14 billion budget, which is larger than the budget of 12 States. Why shouldn't D.C., therefore, have statehood like those States? We are talking about a city that has a $2.5 billion surplus. That is the envy of the States. Ask my colleagues how many of them have a surplus that large. The per capita income of the people I represent is higher than that of any State. Now, that is an interesting figure that should be explained. There are many poor people in the District of Columbia, but there are many high earners, too; and when you put them together, that is one of the reasons you get the highest per capita taxes paid. That is why you get $12,000 per year in Federal taxes from D.C. residents. The personal income of the people I represent is higher than that of seven States; the per capita of personal consumption in expenditures is higher than that of any State; and the total personal consumption expenditures are greater than those of seven States. This is a very productive, a very hardworking city that pays its own way and contributes, as well, mightily to our country. And Americans understand that because the District is attracting residents in large numbers. We have had, in this city, a 15.3 percent increase in residents since the last census. That becomes, on a monthly basis, 800 new residents coming to live in your Nation's Capital every month--almost 700,000, a larger population today than Wyoming and then Vermont, but these States, they have two Senators. They have the same number of Representatives as the District of Columbia--one. If the truth be told, the District is about the same in population as seven States. Those seven States have two Senators each and one Representative who votes on this floor. They and I are equivalent in every respect except, of course, for the taxes per capita D.C. residents pay, and yet they have the vote. Notwithstanding that the District is number one per capita in taxes District residents pay, those seven States have the congressional vote and we do not. This week, in fact, just today, we passed a new tax bill. So imagine how the residents I represent feel about a new tax bill. They are going to end up paying more taxes because SALT, the State and local tax deduction, has been capped. It has been with us for almost 100 years. So instead of taxation without representation, my constituents will have double taxation, at least when it comes to that particular matter, the State and local taxes, double taxation without representation. So when the bell rang for the tax vote, I did not come down because I could not vote for the citizens of the District of Columbia. When there are votes on this floor for matters involving our military and life and death, I do not come down because I cannot vote. Still, I remember the purple fingers from the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan, where they not only were signifying that they had voted, but they were signifying who gave them the vote: members of the military from the United States, including members from the District of Columbia, who have fought and died in every war since the war that created the United States of America. District residents have overpaid for the equal citizenship they seek, and this chart illustrates it tragically: World War I, 635 District of Columbia residents lost their lives in that war. That was a figure greater than three different States. World War II--that was a big one--3,573 District of Columbia residents lost their lives. That was five times greater than the District's losses in World War I, and it was greater than losses in four different States. Moving on to the Korean war, 547 District residents lost their lives. That figure was greater than the loss of life by the military in eight different States. And finally, the Vietnam war, 243 casualties in that war. That was a figure greater than 10 different States. All told, this city, which is a relatively small city, has had almost 200,000 residents serve in the military, and that is only since World War I. I hasten to add that there has never been a war--and I have not counted the 19th century wars--there has never been a war where the residents of your Nation's Capital were not among those who fought and died. Now, I must ask if there is any Member of Congress who would stand for the Federal Government dictating a local budget or her local matters coming to the House floor after showing what I have shown here this evening about the District of Columbia. Maybe there will be some understanding of why we must protest and resist the treatment of the District of Columbia until the District is given the equality to States by becoming the 51st State. As I have indicated, it is impossible to lay our present predicament on the Framers of our Constitution. Remember, they went to war, it is they who gave us the slogan of ``taxation without representation.'' They were willing to die, to commit treason, largely because they were paying taxes to the crown and had no representation. How can we possibly lay the present predicament of the District on the Framers? It is not them. It is on us today. In the 21st century, Congress cannot continue to ask the residents of the Nation's Capital to watch democracy in operation for everybody else except them. If a matter involves the District of Columbia and has to come before us, then everybody gets to vote on that matter except the Representative of the District of Columbia. You can't justify that alongside American principles, given how much in Federal taxes the people I represent pay, given their sons and daughters who have always gone to war for their country, all of that without a vote in the House and the Senate required by consent of the government. Well, we have two choices, but when you think about it, we have only one. Congress can continue to exercise autocratic authority over the American citizens who live in their own Nation's Capital, treating them--if I may quote the words of the great Frederick Douglass, whose bicentennial we will be celebrating in 2018 (who was a resident of this City), and who said our country was ``Treating the District and its citizens as aliens, not citizens, but subjects.'' We are not subjects. We are American citizens. The only alternative today is to live up to the Nation's promise and ideals and pass the Washington, D.C. Admission Act to make the residents of your Nation's Capital equal by affording them the right to live in the 51st State of the Union of States called the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).