Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank my good friend for helping us document why we believe this is not the time for this Justice to be on the Supreme Court. We recognize that it is not the House of Representatives that decides this matter, but the Congressional Black Caucus represents 17 million Americans who will be deeply affected by who sits on this Court. I appreciate that we have had this full hour to express our views. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Home Rule Clemency Act, a bill that would give the District of Columbia exclusive authority, like the states and territories, to grant clemency to offenders prosecuted under its local laws. While District law appears to give the mayor authority to grant clemency (D.C. Code 1-301.76), it is currently the opinion of the Department of Justice (DOJ) that the president, and not the mayor, has the authority to issue clemency for most local offenses prosecuted under D.C. law, particularly felonies prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney in the D.C. Superior Court. Under current practice, clemency petitions for D.C. convictions, like federal convictions, are submitted to the DOJ for the president's consideration. Whether or not the DOJ's view is correct, my bill would remove all doubt that the District, and not the president, has the authority to issue executive clemency for local offenses. The District, like states and territories, should have full control of its local criminal justice system, the most basic responsibility of local government. Since the D.C. Council has the authority to enact local laws, District officials are in the best position to grant clemency for local law convictions. My bill would provide all clemency authority not currently reserved to the Mayor under D.C. Code 1-301.76 to the District government and would give D.C. the discretion to establish its own clemency system. This bill is an important step in establishing further autonomy for the District in its own local affairs. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, never before, in more than two centuries of American history, has Congress taken back benefits and replaced them with a package that, in turn, reduces benefits in use by the American people. The effect on the District of Columbia would be particularly disappointing because the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has brought the city to virtual universal coverage (only 3.4 percent not covered). Moreover, most Americans, including D.C. residents, get their coverage through their employers. The untold story about Trumpcare is its effect not only on the ACA, but the harmful effects it could have on the one- sixth of the U.S. economy that is accounted for by healthcare costs. The reason Americans oppose Trumpcare is its take-backs: 24 million people would lose coverage; premiums and deductibles would increase; essential coverage for maternity care, prescription drugs, and emergency room visits would end; healthy pre-Medicare elderly would be charged five times what others pay; and instead of lengthening the Medicare Trust Fund, Trumpcare would shorten it by three years. The most devastating effect of repeal would be felt by the lowest-income Americans who benefit from the Medicaid expansion in the ACA with the end of the Medicaid expansion in 2020. Seventy-four percent of Americans, including 54 percent of Republicans, oppose cutting Medicaid funding. I urge my colleagues to join the American people in voting no: recent polls show only 17 percent of the American people support the Republican Trumpcare bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for the excellent job she is doing in leading this Special Order. I don't know about you, but the uninsured in my district are down to 3.8 percent. If you think I am going to let the Republicans take away near universal health care from my district, the District of Columbia, without a fight, just watch me, and watch my colleagues. We had a healthcare townhall. Unlike some of the townhalls of my colleagues, there were not people jumping up saying: Why are you taking away my health care? Instead, they were people like Debbie. Debbie is a lifetime sufferer of asthma. She also has diabetes. She reached her cap. That meant that the medicine she was on, which cost $10,000 a month, would have to be paid by her. She worked every day. How many of you--how many of us--could pay $10,000 a month, no matter what job we have? That, along with her diabetes, makes her a paradigm of the kind of person whose life and death depends on this bill. I want to just say a few words not about all of the important information you have had, but about what I call the worst of the worst. First, let me congratulate my Republican colleagues on doubling down on the number without health care because you double the number without health care. As we are rising with the number who have health care, you now turn downward. We can't possibly live with that, and I don't think the American people will allow you to get away with it. I think about our hospitals, and people say: Why should we pay any attention to the hospitals? Well, when we get back in the era of uncompensated care, what you will have is the Federal Government will never compensate your hospital, so you will compensate your hospital. We are back in the era of free health care, except there is no such thing as free health care. You and I will be paying for it out of our pockets. What they do to the tax credits is shameful. Flat tax credits, unrelated to the costs, replace the kind of tax credits we have in the Affordable Care Act, which are just, as you might expect, up and down according to the value of insurance. What good is a flat tax credit unrelated to the cost of insurance or to your income? Do my Republican colleagues really think they are going to fool anybody with those kinds of replacements? What is perhaps worst of the worst is the work requirement. You get sick, you can't afford to work, you have got to be on the Affordable Care Act, and you need Medicaid in order to do it. They tell you that you have got to go to work in order to--while you are sick, I guess-- get your Medicaid. Get sick, go to work, and qualify for health care under the Republican plan. Those are just some of the worst of the worst. I have got a whole list here, but I thought it important to focus on who gets hurt and why, and why we are simply not going to let that happen.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the extraordinary life of Eni Fa'aua'a Hunkin Faleomavaega, Jr., who passed away last month at the age of 73. Eni Faleomavaega was not only my colleague, he was my friend. Eni was the senior delegate and, therefore, the dean of the delegates. We became friends from the time I was elected in 1990. Eni was as affable as he was serious and dedicated to his constituents in American Samoa. He was the first person of Asian-Pacific descent to chair the House Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment, later serving as ranking member. Eni was fully prepared for his leadership roles in the Congress. He served his country for three years during the Vietnam War. Eni put his education at Brigham Young University and the University of Houston Law Center to a lifetime of public service. He served the people of American Samoa in critical positions. Eni Faleomavaega was deputy attorney general and, later, lieutenant governor of American Samoa. Eni was the administrative assistant to American Samoa Delegate A.U. Fuimaono before he was elected to that position himself in 1988. Even though the District of Columbia pays federal taxes (highest per capita in the U.S.), the delegates have much in common and always worked together. When I discovered that the D.C. flag was not carried by D.C. troops as state troops do, further investigation showed that the troops of the territories also did not carry their flags. Yet, the territories and the District have served their country in notably- disproportionate numbers. All of us signed a letter to House and Senate Armed Services committees. Working together, we got this failure to acknowledge all our troops corrected by the Congress. I was particularly appreciative of Eni's initiatives. For example, he introduced the bill to cancel the trademark using the disparaging word ``Redskins,'' the name of the District of Columbia's football team. That challenge has been vindicated, but is now on appeal. Delegates have always supported one another on issues unique to their districts. I appreciate that all the Democratic delegates are original cosponsors of my bill to make the District of Columbia the 51st state. In the same way, we supported Eni's work against nuclear testing in the South Pacific. Eni led in the Congress on this critical issue, even boycotting then-French president Jacques Chirac's address before a joint session of Congress. Only days before that speech, France was conducting a series of nuclear tests in the South Pacific, despite protests. Eni led the Congress on issues important to American Samoa and to our country. He set a high standard for representation. Eni Faleomavaega was kind and generous, and he was intelligent, able, dedicated, and hard-working. I miss my friend. So does the Congress.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the District of Columbia National Guard Home Rule Act, a bill that would give the mayor of the District of Columbia authority to deploy the D.C. National Guard, after consultation with the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard, with the President retaining authority on federal matters. In local emergencies, including natural disasters and civil disturbances unrelated to national or homeland security, the mayor of the District should have the same authority that governors exercise over the National Guard in their states. Each governor--including the governors of three U.S. territories with Guards--has the authority to deploy the National Guard to protect his or her state or territory, just as local militia did historically. The National Guards in the 50 states and territories operate under dual federal and local jurisdiction. Yet only the President currently has the authority to deploy the D.C. National Guard for both national and local purposes. Today, by far the most likely need for the D.C. National Guard here would be for natural disasters, such as hurricanes and floods, and to restore order in the wake of civil disturbances. The mayor, who knows the city better than any federal official and who works closely with federal security officials, should be able to call on the D.C. National Guard for local natural disasters and civil disturbances, after consultation with the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard. The President should be focused on national matters, including homeland security, not local D.C. matters. Homeland security authority, with respect to the D.C. National Guard, would remain the sole province of the President, along with the power to federalize the D.C. National Guard for federal matters at will. It does no harm to give the mayor authority to deploy the Guard for civil disturbances and natural disasters. However, it could do significant harm to leave the mayor powerless to act quickly. If it makes sense that governors would have control over the deployment of their National Guards, it makes equal sense for the mayor of the District, with a population the size of a small state, to have the same authority. The mayor of the District, as chief executive, should have the authority to deploy the D.C. National Guard in instances that do not rise to the level of federal homeland security activities. My bill permits the mayor to only deploy the D.C. National Guard after consultation with the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard. The bill is another important step toward completing the transfer of full self-government powers to the District. Congress began with the passage of the Home Rule Act of 1973, when it delegated most of its authority over District matters to an elected mayor and Council. The bill follows that model. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the extraordinary life of Thomas S. Williamson, Jr., who passed away this month at the age of 70. Mr. Williamson was a former president of the D.C. Bar and a member of our Federal Law Enforcement Nominating Commission, which advises me on the selection of important federal officials for the District of Columbia, including federal district court judges and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Tom will be especially remembered as a champion for equal legal access to justice for all. His service will be held at the National Cathedral tomorrow. Tom Williamson began his career at the law firm Covington & Burling LLP in 1974, where he became a partner, focusing on employment law, complex litigation, and health and welfare law matters for state governments. As a student, Tom played varsity football at Harvard College and excelled academically. He went on to Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and then to the University of California at Berkeley School of Law. From the beginning of his career and for more than 40 years, Tom had a deep commitment to pro bono service and civil rights. His passion for equal justice was influenced by his experience as a child when his family integrated a white neighborhood in Piedmont, California and experiencing the racism that resulted. District residents are particularly grateful to Tom, who was an influential member of a team of attorneys representing the District in Adams v. Clinton, a case that sought voting rights for the District in the House and Senate. Throughout his years in successful private practice, Tom continuously provided legal service to those most in need of good lawyers--whether providing pro bono service to residents or leading the defense of the District's marriage equality law. Tom's career in law also included public service, where he served as the deputy inspector general at the U.S. Department of Energy and the solicitor of the U.S. Department of Labor. Mr. Speaker, as my thoughts are with Tom's wife, Shelly Brazier, and his family, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the extraordinary life of Thomas. S. Williamson, Jr.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the District of Columbia Local Prosecutor Establishment Act of 2017, to give District of Columbia residents another element of the self-government enjoyed by all other American citizens, including those in the U.S. territories. The bill would establish a local prosecutor's office designated under local law to prosecute all local crimes in the District. Under federal law, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, a federal entity, is responsible for prosecuting most local crimes committed by adults here, which is the greater part of its caseload, in addition to prosecuting federal crimes. This bill is special because it effectuates a 2002 advisory referendum, approved by 82 percent of D.C. voters, to create a local prosecutor's office. There is no law enforcement issue of greater importance to D.C. residents on which they have less say than the prosecution of local crimes here. A U.S. Attorney has no business prosecuting the local crimes of a jurisdiction, an anachronism that is out of place in any, American self-governing jurisdiction. In fact, the territories of the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands, all have local prosecutors to prosecute local crimes. The absence of a local D.C. prosecutor is one more anachronism from the pre-home rule days when D.C. had no local government. The goal of this bill is to give the District the same jurisdiction over the criminal justice matters that state, local, and territorial jurisdictions justifiably regard as mandatory. Amending federal law to create a local prosecutor would be an important step toward our goal of achieving true self-government. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Paperwork Reduction Act, to eliminate the wasteful congressional review process for legislation passed by the District of Columbia Council and to align longtime congressional practice and the law. The congressional review process for D.C. bills is almost entirely ignored by Congress, providing it no benefit, but imposes substantial costs, in time and money, on the District. Congress has almost always used the appropriations process rather than the disapproval process to block or nullify D.C.'s legislation, and entirely abandoned the congressional review process as its mechanism for nullifying D.C. legislation 24 years ago, having only used it three times before then. Yet Congress still requires the D.C. Council to use Kafkaesque make-work procedures to comply with the abandoned congressional review process established by the Home Rule Act of 1973. Our bill would eliminate the congressional review process for legislation passed by the D.C. Council. However, Congress would lose no authority it currently exercises because, even upon enactment of this bill, Congress would retain its authority under clause 17 of section 8 of article I of the U.S. Constitution to amend or overturn any D.C. legislation at any time. The congressional review process, 30 days for civil bills and 60 days for criminal bills, includes those days when either house of Congress is in session, delaying D.C. bills from becoming law often for many months. The delay forces the D.C. Council to pass most bills several times, using a cumbersome and complicated process to ensure that the operations of this large and rapidly changing city continue uninterrupted, avoiding a lapse of the bill before it becomes final. The congressional calendar means that a 30-day period usually lasts a couple of months and often much longer because of congressional recesses. The congressional review period for a bill that changed the word handicap to disability lasted nine months. The Council estimates that 50 to 65 percent of the bills it passes could be eliminated if the review period did not exist. To ensure that a bill becomes law, the Council often must pass the same legislation in three forms: emergency (in effect for 90 days), temporary (in effect for 225 days) and permanent. Moreover, the Council has to carefully track the days the House and Senate are in session for each D.C. bill it passes to avoid gaps and to determine when the bills have taken effect. The Council estimates that it could save 5,000 employee-hours and 160,000 sheets of paper per two-year Council period if the review period were eliminated. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy addressed the issue of saving such resources by eliminating the amount of paperwork sent to Congress when he proposed a cut in the number of reports that federal agencies are required to submit to Congress. Our bill is a perfect candidate because it eliminates a paperwork process that repeats itself without interruption. My bill would do no more than align the Home Rule Act with congressional practice over the last 24 years. Of the more than 5,000 legislative acts transmitted to Congress since the Home Rule Act, only three resolutions disapproving D.C. legislation have been enacted (in 1979, 1981, and 1991) and two of those mistakenly involved federal interests, one in the Height Act and the other in the location of chanceries. Placing a congressional hold on 5,000 D.C. bills has not only proven unnecessary, but has imposed costs on the D.C. government, residents and businesses. District residents and businesses are also placed on hold because they have no certainty when D.C. bills, from taxes to regulations, will take effect, making it difficult to plan. Instead of using the congressional review process to nullify D.C. legislation, Congress has preferred to use riders to appropriations bills. Therefore, it is particularly unfair to require the D.C. Council to engage in this labor-intensive and costly process. My bill would only eliminate the automatic hold placed on D.C. legislation and the need for the D.C. Council to comply with a process initially created for the convenience of Congress, but that is now rarely used. This bill would promote efficiency and cost savings for Congress, the District, its residents, and businesses without reducing congressional oversight, and would carry out a policy stressed by Congress of eliminating needless paperwork and make-work redundancy. I urge my colleagues to support this good-government measure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Georgia for yielding. I certainly thank him for being a cosponsor of my bill. I should start, however, by thanking Chairman Shuster, and Ranking Member DeFazio, who have moved this bill so quickly. The bill is called the Fairness for Breastfeeding Mothers Act of 2017. This is a real motherhood bill. Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Johnson, and Barbara Comstock have all joined me as cosponsors. H.R. 1174 requires locations that are either federally owned or leased to provide designated private and hygenic lactation space for nursing mothers. As I will indicate, no new space in buildings or expenditures is contemplated. Last Congress, I offered this bill as an amendment to the Public Buildings Reform and Savings Act of 2016, and I was pleased to have it pass the House. Space for lactating women is already required for Federal employees. We are really not talking about a new kind of benefit. Certainly, there is no new money. The reason that this is not new is because Federal employees already have lactating space under the Affordable Care Act. So I have to ask my good friends on the other side: As you try to repeal the Affordable Care Act, do you propose to erase this motherhood provision as well? Will you preserve it? My bill extends the lactating space requirement to include not just employees, but visitors and guests of Federal facilities across the Nation. H.R. 1174 also does not require additional Federal funds or space to be mandated at all. Since Federal employees already have this space, I look forward to visitors to Federal buildings also making use of this space. In our country, new mothers often come to visit Federal buildings, not only those who work in Federal buildings. The reason this is such an important bill is that the benefits of breast milk are so well documented: antibodies and hormones that boost babies' immune systems, lower risks of asthma, diabetes, respiratory infections, and other diseases among breastfed babies. There are benefits also for nursing mothers. Research has shown that there are lower risks of diabetes and even cancer as a result of breastfeeding. Speaking of motherhood, the Republican healthcare plan would even make maternity care significantly more expensive. Now, this, of course, is a bill that is very easy to support, but when we think of its links to other important legislation, I ask that there be sincere consideration given to whether or not at this moment in time my good friends across the aisle want their legacy to be: We actually repealed your health care. I don't think they are going to be able to do it. My Republican friends have no experience with structural reform. If you look at all the structural reform in our country, beginning with the New Deal, none of it was done by Republicans. Whether you are talking about the administrative agencies that are so important to all that we do in this country, Medicare, Medicaid, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, whatever you have in mind, these are structural reforms that Republicans have, if anything, opposed, as they opposed Social Security, for example. So here what they are trying to do is to unravel, take away health care, and then put something in its place. They have no experience doing anything like it. Anybody who has looked closely at it has to doubt, as I do, that they can do it. Look what they will be doing. In my own district, the District of Columbia, we have cut in half the rate of uninsured. Are Republicans going to give me a guarantee that that cut will remain if they replace the bill with the markup that is going on as we speak? Ninety-six percent of District of Columbia residents have health coverage today. That is comparable to other advanced countries in the world. As we know, most countries in the world already afford this kind of coverage. That makes the District, according to whoever is doing the counting, number one, number two, or number three in the Nation in health care provided to our residents. I am very proud of that. I am going to fight like mad to keep it. Mr. Speaker, many of us had healthcare townhalls over the recess. We saw what happened at the townhalls on affordable care that my good friends on the other side also had. They met a revolution from their own constituents. We didn't have that problem in our townhalls. Some of the stories that residents brought forward are truly heartbreaking, so I want to leave you with one. A woman who came to testify at my healthcare townhall, her name is Markita. Markita's grandmother was a D.C. Public Schools cafeteria worker for most of her career. She retired early. She retired before she had Social Security or Medicare. She was suffering from diabetes and a stroke, but she was so prideful that she never let anyone know that she had to slice her pills in half just to get by. Now she is under the protection of the Affordable Care Act. Markita's grandmother is healthier and can afford her medication. She is no longer splitting her pills in half.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to correct the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), who opined that this bill was not scored correctly. We are talking about space already designated for Federal employees. The intent of the bill, and I am the author of the bill, which could never have gotten through committee if it involved the expenditure of funds. Yes, sometimes these lactation rooms will be dedicated to lactation, but that doesn't mean they are exclusively designated to lactation. And the whole notion that some Federal buildings don't have such space means they are in violation of the Affordable Care Act, which requires that they have such space, even if it is not space that is exclusively used for the few women who are lactating or nursing.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House this afternoon because a very significant event occurred yesterday in the Senate. The Mayor of the District of Columbia, the city council chair, a statehood representative, a statehood senator all came to the Capitol to deliver a petition from the residents of the District of Columbia. Residents voted 85 percent strong that the District of Columbia become the 51st State. At the same time, I introduced the bill to bring that about. This afternoon I want to discuss why the residents of this city would want to become a State. I find that Members of Congress are almost entirely ignorant of the status of the District of Columbia, and, frankly, I cannot really blame them. Members of Congress have no reason to be concerned about the District and its 670,000 residents. That is my concern. Candidly, I wish Members of Congress would not be concerned at all. There are a number of ways in which the Congress could leave the city alone. Statehood is, of course, the ultimate reason and way; and it is the only way that the residents of this city can become equal to the residents represented by my colleagues. This is indeed, as we come now full throttle into the 21st century, in the name of democracy and of American values, why statehood for the District of Columbia simply must come. On this House floor, the residents of the District of Columbia have no vote and, of course, they have no senators whatsoever. What do they give to their country? Let us begin with something very tangible. The residents of this city are number one per capita in the federal taxes they pay to support the United States of America. Let us translate that into a comparison to the taxes my colleagues pay. The residents of this city pay more in federal taxes than the residents of 22 States, and this city is not yet a State. When a matter comes to this floor, every Member can vote on that matter, even when that matter involves uniquely the District of Columbia--every Member can vote on that matter, except the Member who represents the District of Columbia. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, where the Member representing the District can vote, just voted to eliminate a District law. Imagine that. In the United States of America, the Congress of the United States, unaccountable to the residents of the city of Washington, D.C., on local matters can overturn a bill. They have done so in committee on an admittedly controversial bill. I don't expect every State and city to agree with the District of Columbia on matters affecting our city. The DC Death with Dignity bill would allow people to take their own lives with a drug in their possession administered by themselves. In order to do so, two doctors have to have found that the resident does not have more than six months to live, among other requirements. A third of those who choose this option in the United States never use the drug. How do I know that? Because six States already have death with dignity laws. That means 24 Republican Members of this House represent States that have death with dignity laws yet the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform under Chairman Chaffetz just voted to keep the District from doing what six States already allow. This bill was introduced as a so-called disapproval resolution. Such a resolution requires an actual vote in the House and the Senate. It was introduced very late and taken up very late because I believe that the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Speaker of the House didn't want to bring that bill to the floor because there are six States that have precisely this kind of law and because there are 24 Republican Members who would be implicated and would be caught in a matter of supreme hypocrisy if they voted against the very same bill for the District of Columbia. Yesterday, the Mayor of the city, Mayor Muriel Bowser, and council chair Philip Mendelson came to the Senate, who hosted us, to deliver a petition to become the 51st State. This is a procedure that is allowed under our Constitution. It is a procedure that was used in Tennessee where all the prerequisites for statehood have to be fulfilled, the boundaries, et cetera; and you simply present a petition. That is how Tennessee and a number of other States became States. I am very grateful to Senator Tom Carper for hosting us in the Senate where we have no representation. Senator Carper of Delaware is a champion of statehood. He has introduced this bill for years now and did so again in the Senate. It is not unusual for Democrats in the Senate to support D.C. statehood. The four top Democratic leaders are among those who cosponsored the bill last year. I expect that to be the same this year because Senator Tom Carper introduced the bill in the Senate yesterday, even as I introduced the bill in the House at the same time. I want to just say, once again, how faithful and true to his own principles Senator Carper has been in supporting D.C. statehood and stepping out front to introduce the bill. You might ask: What chance, with a Republican House, Senate, and President, do you have of getting D.C. statehood? Why would you bother? No matter who sat in the White House today--and Hillary Clinton was a strong champion of statehood--we are about where we would have been. The work really isn't in the Presidency. The work is in the Congress and, even more so, in the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia has to itself get this shameful record out of having residents who have served in every war, including the war that created the United States of America, paying taxes beyond those paid by other residents. This is on us, and we recognize it. I think you will see a social media campaign informing the American people of what they do not now know because they wouldn't tolerate it if they did. It was very difficult, until the age of social media, to get such word out without a massive advertising campaign. All we need to do now is use the existing social media, and I think we can change this shameful situation. I am very encouraged by what has happened. Yesterday, 60 Democrats joined me as original cosponsors. An original cosponsor is a Member who stands with the sponsor on equal footing to introduce the bill. That already beats the record we set for last year when we had 93 original cosponsors in the 114th Congress. By the end of that Congress, 72 percent of House Democrats were cosponsors of the bill, and we could have gotten many more than that but for the logistics and the timing involved. Our goal is to improve our chances for statehood every year; one way to do that is to get more cosponsors every year, and we are meeting that goal. Why are we pursuing statehood? It is not out of hubris. It is not that we want to be like Delaware and New York. It is because it is the only way to become full and equal citizens of the United States, and because we have tried everything else. Without statehood, Members will continue to bring our matters to the House floor for unaccountable Members to vote on them. Without statehood, we won't have the right to vote on this House floor. We won't have the right to vote in the Senate. We have tried short of statehood. I pay tribute to former Representative Tom Davis, who, in the majority, sponsored a bill with me to get a House vote, only a House vote for the District of Columbia. This was a very important effort strongly supported by the residents of the District of Columbia to say: look, you don't give us statehood, let us get there gradually, give us the House vote. Tom Davis saw that Utah did not have the House vote because their missionaries were not counted by the census, and they had expected an additional House Representative. The Governor of the State and the State legislature supported the action and most States have used similar bipartisan action to come into the Union. This, of course, would have been only a House vote; one for very Republican Utah, one for Democratic D.C. This bill was passed in the House--thank you, Utah--and was passed in the Senate. And the only reason the District of Columbia does not have a vote, as I speak, is because the National Rifle Association was able to place an amendment on the bill that, in the event D.C. got a vote, would have eliminated all of our gun laws, each and every one. A big city without gun laws, of course, is open territory, and we were left with the woeful and shameful option of giving up our vote, a vote we could have had. We also have tried, short of statehood, to get budget autonomy. Imagine bringing our budget, raised in the District of Columbia, $7 billion, and asking Members who don't know anything about it to vote on it. That is what the residents of the District of Columbia have to do. I pay tribute to the former Republican chairman of the House committee of jurisdiction, Oversight and Government Reform, Darrell Issa, who held a hearing when he chaired the committee on D.C.'s local matters, including its local budget. Upon hearing the testimony about this district's financial conditions, its reserves, its growth among the best of the Nation, upon hearing in testimony from the Mayor, the city council, the chief financial officer, despite meeting those marks, then-Chairman Darrell Issa supported budget autonomy for the District of Columbia, and worked tirelessly for this goal during his chairmanship of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. So I am not here to say that there is no sense of a necessity to have something done, as you see that in former Chairman Darrell Issa's actions. For that matter, Chairman Jason Chaffetz, last week, called for the District of Columbia to be made a part of Maryland in order that it would get Senators and Representatives. He wasn't joking. He wasn't making fun of us. There has long been a small group of Republicans who acknowledge the shame of having almost 700,000 Americans without representation in the House and the Senate. And one of the easier ways to get it, they think, is to retrocede, that is the word, because the District was created out of Maryland and Virginia. Virginia itself cast off, the District of Columbia because it was afraid Congress would abolish slavery. So the notion is, go back to Maryland. My first notion or response is: Have you asked Maryland? In other words, you don't decide to reconfigure a State with a big city, and Maryland has only one big city, because you are fulfilling one value without fulfilling the other value, which is to make sure you have the permission of that State. Now, Maryland has been a very friendly State to the District of Columbia. But the District is not asking Maryland to become a part of its State. We want to become the 51st State of the United States of America, and it would probably be easier to do that than to become a part of Maryland. Now, we also are not insisting that there is nothing else that will do. We have asked for legislative autonomy. Why should our legislation have to lay over here for 30 days, or 60 days? They must be legislative days, so that often means 6 months, 9 months, to give the Congress time to see whether the Congress wants to overturn legislation it had nothing to do with and knows nothing about. The fact is that the legislative autonomy provision is virtually never used. Instead, the Congress tries to add amendments to the District's budget, a sneaky, easy way, they think, to overturn a law. So they keep legislative autonomy on the books inconveniencing the District and never use it. They fear budget autonomy because they wouldn't have anything to attach matters to like overturning our gun laws. They regularly try to do that on appropriations. So what you have is a kind of invitation for Members to interfere with somebody else's district, my district, instead of attending to your own business. People did not send my colleagues here to attend to the business of the District of Columbia, and we intend to call them out every time they interfere. So, yes, we are struggling for the components of statehood, even before we achieve statehood, knowing how difficult and what a high climb that is. Madam Speaker, could I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, if there is such a thing as earning statehood, and of course there is not, let me indicate the ways in which the District of Columbia has, indeed, earned statehood. Our economy is one of the strongest in the United States. It is a $12.5 billion budget total. That is a budget larger than 12 States represented in this House by my colleagues. How many of my colleagues can boast a $2 billion surplus the way the District of Columbia can? That would be, of course, the envy of most States. Our city has a per capita income higher than that of any State. We are not asking for any handouts. Our total personal income is higher than that of seven States. Our per capita personal consumption expenditures are higher than those of any States. This is a prosperous district, that would bring luster to the United States as the 51st State. Its growth rate is third highest in the Nation; 1,000 new people coming to live in the Nation's Capital every single month. As to our population, the population of the District of Columbia, is in the league with the population of seven States. We have a greater population than Vermont and Wyoming. And, if you look at the seven States that have one Representative, as the District of Columbia does, then you will see that we are all about the same. Yet, those seven States that are about the same in population as the District of Columbia, each has one Representative and two Senators, while we are unrepresented in the Senate of the United States. I don't even want to speak, but I must, about perhaps the most poignant reason why the District should have statehood. The residents of this city have fought and died in every war, including the war that created our country itself. I remember coming to the floor on those occasions where we have voted whether or not to go to war, and on each of those occasions, residents of the District of Columbia have gone. I remember the purple fingers in Iraq and Afghanistan that signified that our country had given them the vote, while the very members of the armed services from the District of Columbia who had served came back to the District of Columbia without a vote themselves. Is that an irony that this body can even stand any longer? Fought and died in all the great wars of the 20th century, and we remember especially Vietnam, when there were more District of Columbia casualties than from 10 States of the Union. I don't want to go into the technicalities of congressional power, but Congress has the authority to make our city a State because of its Article IV, section 3 power to admit new States to the Union. When you combine that with Congress' Article I, section 8, clause 17 power over the seat of the Federal Government, which is what the District is, it is an accident, an accident of history that the District does not have the same votes as other Americans. It is a slander to think that those who went to war on the slogan of ``no taxation without representation'' would leave any residents of our city without representation. There was a march by Revolutionary War veterans when the Capitol was in Philadelphia that frightened, frankly, the Framers. So they thought: Well, you can't have a separate State, and it can't be part of a State, and we don't know what to do, so let's just make it a district. But they never believed that it would be a district without any rights, and that is exactly what it became. Indeed, the District was carved out of Maryland and Virginia, but for the 10-year period of transition the citizens of the new district did not lose the votes in the Senate and the House. Only in 1801, when the District became the Nation's Capital under the Congress of the United States did we lose Senate representation and representation in the House. Enormous change has occurred in our city in the 216 years since we became the Capital. I am a third-generation Washingtonian. My great- grandfather was a runaway slave from Virginia, so my own family has seen 150 years of those changes. This is no longer a sleepy Southern city where I went to segregated schools--segregated by the Congress of the United States, indeed, because it had the sole authority to do it. In fact, today, it is one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the United States, a city that people are flocking to for residence. Everything about the District of Columbia has changed except its status and the status of its residents as second class citizens in their own country. We are sick and tired of being voyeurs of democracy. That is why the District of Columbia gave itself budget autonomy, although the Congress did appropriate a budget. Thank you for nothing. That is why the city voted 85 percent for statehood for itself. The citizens of the District are simply not going to sit still with the status quo. They are not going to sit on their second class citizenship. So I come to the floor after we have brought our petition to the Congress to become the 51st State. I come to the floor the day after I have introduced the bill to put the Congress on notice: Be ready. Be ready for a campaign by the residents of the District of Columbia and our allies throughout the United States to be treated fairly, or as Frederick Douglass said, ``not as aliens.'' We can decide to get rid of this anomaly as we have so many others that deprived citizens of the right to vote, whether they were slaves or women. We have gotten rid of those. Statehood does not require a constitutional amendment. All it takes is the conscience of the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Washington, D.C. Admission Act with 115 original cosponsors, a record number. This is the most important bill I introduce each Congress, and it is especially meaningful this time in light of the historic results of the District of Columbia's statehood referendum last November. District voters overwhelmingly voted in favor of the referendum, which advises the D.C. Council to petition Congress for statehood. Residents are more energized than ever before to continue this momentum for statehood, equality, and self-determination. District residents have always been citizens of the United States but remain the only federal income taxpaying Americans who do not have full and equal citizenship rights. The denial of local control of local matters and of equal representation in the Congress of the United States can be remedied only by statehood. Therefore, I am introducing the Washington, D.C. Admission Act to create a state from essentially the eight home-town wards of the District of Columbia. This 51st state, of course, would have no jurisdiction over the federal territory or enclave that now consists of the Washington that Members of Congress and visitors associate with the capital of our country. The U.S. Capitol Complex, the principal federal monuments, federal buildings and grounds, the National Mall, the White House, and other federal property here would remain under federal jurisdiction. Our bill provides that the State of Washington, D.C. would be equal to the other fifty states in all respects, as is always required, and that the residents of Washington, D.C. would have all the rights of citizenship as taxpaying American citizens, including two senators and, initially, one House member. The District of Columbia recognizes that it can enter the Union only on an equal basis and is prepared to do so. A substantially similar version of the Washington DC. Admission Act was the first bill I introduced after I was first sworn in as a Member of Congress in the 102nd Congress in 1991. Our first try for statehood received significant support in the House. In 1993, we got the first and only vote on statehood for the District, with nearly 60 percent of Democrats and one Republican voting for the bill. The Senate held a hearing on various approaches to representation, but the committee of jurisdiction did not proceed further. In the 113th Congress, our statehood bill got unprecedented momentum with the Senate's first-ever hearing on statehood, which was the first congressional hearing held on statehood in more than 20 years. The House held its hearing on statehood in 1993, and obtained a record number of cosponsors in the House and Senate, including then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, as well as the other top three Democratic leaders in the Senate. In addition, President Obama endorsed D.C. statehood in a public forum before the statehood hearing was held. Statehood is the only alternative for the citizens of the District of Columbia. To be content with less than statehood is to concede the equality of citizenship that is the birthright of our residents as citizens of the United States. That is a concession no American citizen has ever made, and one D.C. residents will not make as they approach the 216th year in their fight for equal treatment in their country. This bill reaffirms our determination to obtain each and every right enjoyed by citizens of the United States, by becoming the 51st State in the Union.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett) for yielding to me. I had to come down as I saw this attempt to use our jurisdiction to undermine our independent agencies. And I want to put an emphasis on independent agencies because they have always been treated differently. Executive Order 12866 has long subjected agency rulemakings to some review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, but independent agencies have been treated differently. Congress deliberately created them as independent to exempt them from political review for their regulatory actions by the White House. The agencies we are talking about are very often agencies that deal with our economy. They are almost always agencies whose subject matter is controversial, like the National Labor Relations Board, which deals with labor management matters, or the FTC, whose role is to prevent anticompetitive business practices, not to mention the Fed. Now, the executive order provides OIRA with the ability to do cost- benefit analysis ``unless prohibited by law.'' Those words are our - congressional words, ``unless prohibited by law.'' Now, that language is not in this executive order. Does it mean that it is erased so that, with respect to environment and public safety rules for example, ``prohibited by law'' no longer obtains and cost benefit can be done so that you can weigh the cost or the benefit of rules? The benefit would be clear, but the cost of rules that are so protective of the public that we have exempted them in the past--the silence is deafening. Agencies also have always been able to indicate, because they have the only real knowledge, whether or not their rulemakings are significant. How could we give this exclusive authority now to OIRA? The politicization of independent agencies, making them subject to White House oversight, is very dangerous. It robs them of what is perhaps the most important part of their independence. This bill goes many steps too far.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill to require the Library of Congress to install the District of Columbia seal in the Main Reading Room of the Thomas Jefferson Building of the Library of Congress concurrently with the renovation and replacement of the existing glass panels. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee passed this bill unanimously last Congress. The Library is one of the few buildings in the District that remains open to the public on most holidays. It provides not only D.C. residents but visitors and researchers from across the nation with access to incomparable resources. The bill requires the Library to depict the District's seal on the stained-glass windows in the Main Reading Room, where the seals of all the states and territories that existed when the building was constructed, except for the District, are depicted. D.C.'s seal was readily available at that time and should have been included. The seals of Hawaii and Alaska are not included in the display because they were not states or territories when the building was constructed. The fact that these two states were not part of the Union at the time of the creation of the stained-glass windows argues for the inclusion of the District, which, after all, was in fact the nation's capital at the time. We are asking that the omission of D.C. be corrected immediately. This omission was brought to my attention by a District resident, Luis Landau, a former docent at the Library. The residents of the District have always had all the obligations of American citizenship, including paying federal taxes and serving in all the nation's wars, including the War of 1812, during which the Capitol building, which then housed the Library of Congress, was burned, prompting construction of the current Library of Congress building with the state and territory seals. It is, therefore, without question that the District and its residents should receive equal treatment among the stained-glass windows that portray the history of the United States. D.C. residents deserve to have their history and American citizenship recognized. There is existing evidence that the seal of the District should have been depicted. The Members of Congress room in the Jefferson Building, which is not open to the public, has a painted depiction of the D.C. seal, along with state seals, on its ceiling. This precedent reinforces our request to be represented among the stained-glass windows in the Main Reading Room, which is open to the public. There is no reason why the D.C. seal cannot be added with the planned restoration of the stained-glass. The right time to add the seal of the District would be during the planned restoration. Congress already includes the District, or has corrected the omission of the District, when honoring the states. For example, the District of Columbia War Memorial honors District residents who served in World War I, the World War II Memorial includes a column representing the District, and D.C.'s Frederick Douglass statue now sits in the Capitol alongside statues from the 50 states. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 requires the armed services to display the District flag whenever the flags of the states are displayed. Legislation was also enacted to give D.C. a coin after it was omitted from legislation creating coins for the 50 states. We also successfully worked with the U.S. Postal Service to create a D.C. stamp, like the stamps for the 50 states, and worked with the National Park Service to add the D.C. flag alongside the state flags across from Union Station. It is long overdue to display the D.C. seal, along with the seals of the states, in the Main Reading Room of the Library of Congress. I urge support for this legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Fairness for Breastfeeding Mothers Act of 2017, a bill that would require buildings that are either federally owned or leased to provide designated private and hygienic lactation spaces for nursing mothers. The bill was included in the Public Buildings Reform and Savings Act of 2016, which passed the House last Congress. For years, federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have encouraged breastfeeding. The benefits are so great that federal law now requires employers to provide a designated, non- bathroom space for employees to pump breastmilk for their newborns, ensuring that new mothers would be able to continue this essential practice even after returning to work. My bill would extend this requirement to include not just employees, but visitors and guests to federal facilities across the nation. In Washington, D.C. alone, millions of tourists visit federal sites, such as the Lincoln Memorial. Increasingly, families understand the unique benefits of breastfeeding, and visitors to these buildings who have newborns and babies should have a private space to breastfeed or pump. The benefits of breastfeeding are well-documented. Breastmilk contains antibodies and hormones that boost babies' immune systems, and studies have shown lower risks of asthma, diabetes, respiratory infections and other diseases among breastfed babies. Moreover, breastfeeding also has benefits for nursing mothers, who, research has shown, have lower risks of diabetes and certain forms of cancer. Given the significant public health benefits of breastfeeding for both mother and baby, already recognized in federal policy, my bill is a logical next step to ensure visitors to federal sites have access to clean, hygienic, and private spaces to nurse or pump. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which would provide access to designated lactation rooms for guests to federally owned or leased buildings.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Courts and Public Defender Service Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments Act. The bill, which passed the House in the 114th Congress, would make a small but important change to the authorities of the District of Columbia Courts (D.C. Courts) and the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (PDS), placing these entities in the same position as their federal counterparts for more effective management and operation. The bill would give the D.C. Courts and PDS the same authority federal agencies and federal courts already have to offer voluntary separation incentive payments, or buyouts, to their employees. The fiscal year 2016 omnibus bill already gives D.C. Courts buyout authority, but my bill would make this authorization permanent, and would extend it to PDS in addition to the D.C. Courts. Buyouts would allow the D.C. Courts and PDS to respond to future administrative and budget needs, and would provide the flexibility to extend buyout offers to their employees. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has determined that voluntary separation incentive payments may be made only where statutorily authorized. Federal agencies and federal courts already have the statutory authority to offer buyouts, and PDS and the D.C. Courts need the same express authority in order to manage their workforce as budget conditions and needs change. 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 the work of the Metropolitan Police Department, in particular the Second District, and the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia. Representatives from these agencies worked closely with D.C. residents on Belmont Road NW and the leadership of the Islamic Center of Washington to forge a remedy to a life-threatening situation that had hate-crime implications. These individuals provided extraordinary guidance and intervention in bringing closure to a situation that had exposed D.C. residents to racial and homophobic slurs, as well as threats of bodily harm, for more than five years. I therefore rise with pride to salute police officers Lt. Jerome M. Merrill, Sgt. Brian H. Brown, Sgt. Miguel Rodriguezgil, and Mr. James T. Towns, Community Engagement Director, with the Office of the Attorney General. In particular, I applaud the leadership efforts of Dr. Khouj, Imam, and Abassie Jarr-Koroma of the Islamic Center of Washington, and A. Mario Castillo, a resident of Belmont Road, who coordinated the teamwork on. this matter. This civic success story brings to mind a fitting quote attributed to the great American poet and writer Maya Angelou, ``It's good to remember that in crises, natural crises, human beings forget for a while their ignorance, their biases, their prejudices. For a little while, neighbors help neighbors and strangers help strangers.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in applauding my constituents and the law enforcement officers.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Bruce DePuyt, who will be leaving NewsChannel 8 this week after over two decades of outstanding journalism and service to Washington, D.C. and the national capital region. For 23 years, Washingtonians have turned to Bruce for insight and in- depth reporting on local and national news. Bruce had a talent for bringing local and regional voices together--from elected officials and police chiefs to community leaders--to speak and inform D.C. and area residents on a host of topics important to this region and the nation. Even before arriving at NewsChannel 8, however, people could turn to Bruce for trusted journalism wherever he was reporting. A graduate of the University of Maryland in 1984, Bruce got an early start in journalism as a college radio station student-host calling women's basketball. After graduating, he went on to work as a reporter and anchor at WVIR in Charlottesville, Virginia, and produced an award- winning weekly talk show, ``21 This Week,'' on Cable News 2 in Montgomery County, Maryland, where he won a Cable Ace award. In 1993, Bruce joined the team at NewsChannel 8, where he has been ever since. Bruce's career at NewsChannel 8 has been marked by smart commentary, excellent reporting, and penetrating questioning. In 2013, he was named the Best TV Personality by the Washington Blade magazine, and Washington City Paper readers named him the Best Newsmaker in 2010. For his brilliant reporting, Bruce was also awarded the Cronkite Award by the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. Since 2002, Bruce has been the host of Newstalk, a daily mid-morning news show, where he has hosted more than 11,000 guests over 3,300 episodes. Bruce continues to be an active and beloved member of both his community and his church, the All Souls Unitarian Church, where he was a former trustee. For his work, Bruce was given the Pillar of Faith Award by the Howard University School of Divinity. Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress are familiar with Bruce's excellence here on television. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Bruce DePuyt for 23 years of extraordinary work and service as news anchor and reporter with NewsChannel 8 and as a favorite of the national capital region.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding. I stand here in a unique position; first, to oppose this sweeping attack on women's reproductive health in its entirety, but I also am compelled to discuss the unique provision that singles out the District of Columbia, permanently barring the District of Columbia from spending its own local funds--not a cent of it raised in this Congress--on abortion services for low-income women, thus uniquely denying the District of Columbia government the right that local and State governments exercise throughout the United States using their own local funds. Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 goes further. It insults the District of Columbia. Just to make sure everybody understands that the bill means to include the District of Columbia, it tortuously defines or redefines the term ``Federal Government'' to include a local jurisdiction, the ``District of Columbia government.'' The District of Columbia government is thrown in with the Federal Government. We are talking about U.S. citizens, the people I represent, who are number one per capita in taxes raised to support the government of the United States of America.

Ms. NORTON. This bill, of course, is annual, and it is less inclined to become law than to be part of the annual upcoming march. We do not intend, Madam Speaker, to let our colleagues get away with not supporting democracy, including the right of local governments to spend their own local funds on choice. Everywhere on Earth you can support such a right, except for the 700,000 people who live in your own Nation's Capital.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in recognizing Jason Jabbar Spear, who has served as my Legislative Associate and Deputy Communications Director for more than five years. During this time, he has proven himself to be a valuable member of my staff and essential to the work that our office provides to our more than 670,000 residents. On December 31, 2016, Jason will be leaving my office to further his education at New York University's Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. Jason's strong work ethic, quick wit and humor, intelligence, and constant enthusiasm will surely be missed by his colleagues in the House, the residents of the District of Columbia, and especially my office. Jason, a native of Alabama, quickly adopted D.C. as his second home. After completing a term as a White House intern, Jason joined my office and took advantage of every opportunity to help the mission of our office. Jason performed his duties with excellence and energy. He answered phones; wrote correspondence, legislation, and press releases; planned events; and even photographed many of those same events, all while managing a legislative portfolio. His capacity for hard work and his very affable demeanor made Jason a pleasure to be around and work with. Jason's presence in my office and in the city will surely be missed and I wish him all the best in New York. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Jason Spear for his outstanding service to the House of Representatives and my office, and to the residents of the District of Columbia.