Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I want only to conclude by requesting that the House pass this bill and name the post office in Zapata, Texas, to commemorate the men and women whose brave acts and selfless deeds have preserved our American freedom. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 5591. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to support H.R. 5676, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6300 N. Northwest Highway in Chicago, Illinois, as the Officer Joseph P. Cali Post Office Building. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), a good friend, the author of this legislation, and a member of the committee.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I want only to endorse the remarks of my good friend, Mr. Quigley, and to indicate we should pass this bill to memorialize Officer Cali and inspire others through his legacy of respect, kindness, and community service. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 5889, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1 Chalan Kanoa VLG in Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, as the Segundo T. Sablan and CNMI Fallen Military Heroes Post Office Building. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan), the author of this bill.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, we should pass this bill in memory of Segundo Sablan, his heroic actions during World War II, and his dedicated career in the United States Postal Service. I urge the passage of H.R. 5889. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to support H.R. 5356, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 14231 TX-150 in Coldspring, Texas, as the E. Marie Youngblood Post Office. Eddie ``Marie'' Youngblood served as a rural letter carrier and worked tirelessly to deliver mail to southeast Texans who would have otherwise had to travel many miles. She was well known and loved on her route for her friendly nature and willingness to go out of her way to serve others. Tragically, Marie was shot and killed while on her mail route on May 17, 2013, leaving behind a husband, two sons, and two grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, we should pass this bill to remember Eddie ``Marie'' Youngblood and celebrate the lives she touched through her loving actions and committed service to the community and to the United States Postal Service. I urge the passage of H.R. 5356. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to support H.R. 5798, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1101 Davis Street in Evanston, Illinois, as the Abner J. Mikva Post Office Building. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the author of this bill.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I endorse the words of the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), and I urge the passage of H.R. 5798, a bill to honor the legacy of Abner Mikva and to commemorate his exemplary life of public service across all branches of our Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Flood Prevention Act of 2016. The bill would amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) to include the District of Columbia in the definition of ``coastal state.'' Our bill would correct what appears to be an oversight, in the omission of the District of Columbia, making the District eligible to receive federal funding and giving the District oversight for federally issued permits/facilities/and actions that affect the coastal waters of the District. In an effort to reduce coastal flood risk, Congress has authorized a number of programs to help states and territories respond to floods and mitigate risk through resiliency projects. Among these programs, the CZMA provides planning and technical services to assist states in protecting, restoring, and developing coastal communities and resources. Once the federal government approves a state's coastal management plan, the state becomes eligible for grants. Federal actions must be consistent with the state plans. Even though the District of Columbia has substantial coastal flood risks, D.C. is omitted from the list of eligible states and territories in the CZMA. The CZMA was passed in 1972--before the District achieved home rule. Under Section 304 of the CZMA, ``coastal state[s]'' include the states and the U.S. territories (Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands, and American Samoa). Absent from this definition is the District of Columbia, even though the District of Columbia is under threat from rising sea levels. Because the territories are included in the definition of ``coastal states,'' it appears that D.C.'s omission is a mistake that only Congress can correct. Scientists have predicted that the tides on the Atlantic Coast could rise two to four feet by the year 2100, causing as much as $7 billion worth of property in the District to be routinely under threat by floodwaters. This damage not only includes private homes and businesses, but the National Mall, federal buildings, and three military bases located in the District. The Anacostia and Potomac rivers are both tidally influenced, showing tangible salt water effects (and fish) and are part of an ``intertidal-zone'' existing between high and low maritime tides. In addition, the Maryland and Virginia coastal zones each include the tidal Potomac River, with Maryland's zone ending at the District line. Because of these factors, the District of Columbia should be eligible for CZMA grants just like the states and territories. I urge support for this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Pay Equity for All Act of 2016, a bill that will help eliminate the gender and racial pay gap by prohibiting employers from asking job applicants for their salary history before making a job or salary offer. Representatives Rosa DeLauro, Jerrold Nadler, and Jackie Speier are original cosponsors of the bill. Even though many employers may not intentionally discriminate against applicants or employees based on gender, race or ethnicity, setting wages based on salary history can reinforce the wage gap. Members of historically disadvantaged groups often start out their careers with unfair and artificially low wages compared to their white male counterparts, and the disparities are compounded from job to job throughout their careers. Our bill will ensure that applicants' salaries are based on their skills and merit, not on a potentially problematic salary history, by assessing penalties against employers who ask applicants for their salary history during the interview process or as a condition of employment. It would also provide job applicants and employees with a private right of action against employers who violate these provisions. Although the wage gap has decreased for some women, it still persists for women and men of color with similar skill sets. There is much work to be done to address the wage gap for everyone, and our bill is just one step toward that goal. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, a sit-in on the House floor should not be necessary to get a vote on gun safety legislation overwhelmingly supported by the American people. That is what I had to do as a kid in the civil rights movement. Why would I be driven and why would Democrats have to be driven to do that in this House? Closing the loophole after Charleston and Orlando has become a virtual mandate. Orlando probably accounted for my success in keeping dangerous bills from coming to the floor this session to erase three D.C. gun laws that protect residents, Federal officials, and 20 million visitors alike. Congress, close the loophole. Do your job.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, there is loads of work for Congress to do ``before we sleep''--from the budget for the federal government itself to funding for the Zika health emergency before it gets any more out of control. Instead, the House just wasted time on H.R. 5226, the badly misnamed Regulatory Integrity Act, a bill so costly to taxpayers and so redundant of existing legislation that it has attracted a veto threat. The bill adds wasteful costs to the regulatory process Republicans incessantly claim is too costly now. H.R. 5226 requires every public communication to be published within 24 hours. Duh! Public communications are by definition--public. Republicans have never seen a regulation they like. Putting new and costly work on agencies won't make regulations any less acceptable. If the point was the same as usual--to try to deter regulations-- Republicans are going to have to try harder.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in honoring Chief Judge Lee F. Satterfield, Chief Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, who will be completing his final term as Chief Judge on September 30, 2016. Chief Judge Satterfield's service has been notable not only for its excellence but for his genuine care for and commitment to serving the people of the District of Columbia. A proud Washingtonian and graduate of St. John's College High School, Judge Satterfield received a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from the University of Maryland. From an early age, he drew inspiration from his father, who withdrew his application for a judicial position on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia after hearing that his teenage son had been diagnosed with bone cancer. Chief Judge Satterfield always recalled how his father relinquished his own dreams to help his son through a difficult time of his childhood. His father always told him to deal with people as he would want them to deal with him. The judge's commitment and perseverance are evident in the career path he chose. Throughout his 30-year career, Lee Satterfield has played an important role in the administration of justice. After receiving his Juris Doctor from George Washington University National Law School in 1983, he was appointed to serve as an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. In that position, he served in the appellate, grand jury, misdemeanor and felony sections of the United States Attorney's Office. In September 1988, Judge Satterfield joined the law firm of Sachs, Greenebaum and Taylor, before serving as a trial attorney for the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the United States Department of Justice. In that section, he prosecuted organized crime and labor racketeering crimes in the federal courts of the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. Chief Judge Satterfield first served on the Superior Court bench in November 1992, as an appointee of President Bush. He originally served in the court's Criminal, Civil, Family, and Domestic Violence divisions, and went on to serve as one of the court's original Drug Court judges. During this time, Judge Satterfield was also a member of several national and regional advocacy organizations, such as the National Advisory Committee on Domestic Violence, the District of Columbia Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative Committee and the Citywide Truancy Task Force. In this capacity, Judge Satterfield authored unprecedented regulations for domestic violence court operations and piloted a Middle School Truancy Court Diversion Program in District of Columbia Public Schools. In September 2008, Judge Satterfield was inaugurated as Chief Judge of the Superior Court. As Chief Judge, Judge Satterfield oversaw 112 Superior Court judges and launched several effective initiatives. He started programs that ensured the accurate prosecution of self- represented parties, allowed tenants to easily report their landlords for violations, and authorized an increased technological presence in the courtroom. He also streamlined and prioritized the Superior Court's jury selection process, directed a $63 million renovation of the courthouse, and founded a specialized behavioral court that afforded juveniles a chance to reduce or eliminate charges against them if they complied with treatment. Chief Judge Satterfield also, notably, oversaw the implementation of new marriage equality laws in the District and expanded the community court initiative, which resulted in significantly lower recidivism among those who committed misdemeanors. Among all of his other commitments, for over 20 years, Judge Satterfield was an adjunct professor at the Catholic University Columbus School of Law, where he taught Criminal Trial Practice and Advanced Criminal Procedure. He was also a professional lecturer in the L.L.M. litigation program at George Washington University National Law School for four years. Chief Judge Satterfield has shown unusual resilience through medical crises later in his life, including a heart transplant and a stroke he endured in 2011. He has consistently been a source of inspiration to his colleagues and the D.C. community. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Chief Judge Lee F. Satterfield for his service to the country, to the District of Columbia and our courts, and to wish him the best for the remainder of his time on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and for his retirement in February 2017.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, after Orlando, the largest mass shooting in our history, Democrats focused the Congress and the country on the urgent need to expand background checks. Many jurisdictions, including the Nation's Capital, have strong gun safety laws, but they are countermanded daily by congressional failure to pass national legislation to keep criminals from bringing guns from neighboring jurisdictions. Eighty-one percent of the American people support background checks before purchase of a deadly weapon. They want Congress to check the recent spike in gun violence nationwide. They want us to pass H.R. 1217, our bipartisan background check bill. Hear the American people.

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this time on the House floor this evening because there has been a historic development in the District of Columbia. Today, a new group called Statehood Yes announced what amounts to bipartisan support for D.C. statehood. The fact is that the Republican Party of the District of Columbia had not always--in fact, had not been officially a part of the statehood movement, which is not to say that some Republicans have not been for D.C. statehood. But today was very different. Today, a D.C. resident, George Vradenburg, a philanthropist in our city, a long-term resident, and a former AOL executive, announced that he was chairing a campaign that is part of the effort of the District of Columbia to achieve statehood. That effort is being led by the Mayor and the City Council who, earlier this year, launched what is called the Tennessee Plan. The Tennessee Plan is simply a shorthand way to get statehood. The way in which my statehood bill operates is that, yes, the House and the Senate would vote for statehood, and it would then ask the city to submit a constitution and do what is necessary to become a State. The Tennessee plan simply reverses that process. It does what Tennessee did. What Tennessee did was what the District is in the process of doing. What Tennessee did was to present a constitution to the people to be ratified. And when it had done all of the preliminaries, preliminaries that are often done after the statehood vote, they simply came to the Congress and said: Approve us for admission to the State. And, indeed, that is exactly what the Congress did 200 years ago. The District is trying to imitate that approach to statehood. In order to do so, there needs to be a vote. You are not going to get statehood if you don't want it. So as part of the democratic process, the District would have to vote on whether or not it wants statehood. That is what the Statehood Yes campaign is trying to facilitate as part of what is required by the Tennessee plan. What this means is--much like the State of Tennessee, it was a Federal territory at the time--this bill would be submitted to the President after the House and the Senate had voted for D.C. statehood if the voters answered four questions. What are these questions? First, the voters will have to answer yes or no whether the District should become a State. Second, the District will have to answer whether voters, those of us who live in the District and vote in the District, approve of a constitution. That constitution is being adopted as I speak by the Council of the District of Columbia. Third, the voters will have to approve the proposed boundaries for the State. That is important since the Federal sector would continue to exist. That Federal sector would be the areas where The Mall and monuments and other Federal buildings are now located. The new State would be the neighborhoods of the District of Columbia. And the fourth question the voters will be asked to approve is whether they pledge to support an elected representative form of government. I was very pleased to hear Mr. Vradenburg speak today at Busboys and Poets, one of our local meeting places, about why he supports D.C. statehood and why he has taken on this effort to be the chairman. Among the things he discussed, of course, is how he intends, with the effort of Statehood Yes, to reach out to all parts of the country. The District recognizes that, in spite of this bipartisan support in the District of Columbia, statehood remains an uphill climb. What important change in our country has not been an uphill climb? We are undaunted by that prospect. We recognize that the Republican Party nationally has certainly not been supportive of D.C. statehood. At its convention this year, the Republicans did not include language supporting D.C. statehood. In fact, there was language that appeared to oppose D.C. statehood. But at that time we did not have what we apparently have today, and that is the official support of the Republican Party of the District of Columbia. That official support could not be more important. Present at the Statehood Yes announcement today was Patrick Mara, the Executive Director of the Republican Party of the District of Columbia. This bipartisanship is minimally necessary for us to move forward; just as we recognize we will have to work with Republicans here in the Congress in order to get the same rights they have. District of Columbia residents are number one per capita, first in taxes paid to support the government of the United States, and yet, the City's budget comes here every year. It is a local budget. That is money, $4 billion, raised in the District of Columbia. I am sure my colleagues would tear their hair out, Republican and Democrat, if their local budget had to come here. The reason the District has moved to statehood is that there is no other way to achieve equality as American citizens except as a new State. Today's effort came as every Member of this House is running for office. As I thought about what this first bipartisan effort, the first thought that crossed my mind was that D.C. is running for statehood. It is going to the people and saying: We can't move forward with the effort the Congresswoman has made, or with this effort through the Tennessee Plan, a shorthand way to get statehood, but one that has been used by other States, unless D.C. wants statehood. So in D.C. that is like second nature. Why would you ask somebody if they wanted statehood? We all know the answer, but getting an official answer, an answer through a vote, is very different from answer, an answer through a vote, is very different from everyone understanding that nobody would choose to have Congress in your local business if you had a choice, particularly a Congress which has shown for a number of years now that it can't even run itself, much less try to have anything to do with running a District of almost 700,000 American citizens. So, yes, we do need a strong vote from residents to move forward with statehood. I am not at all concerned about that vote. A poll showed that more than three-quarters--that is a poll that was taken by one of our newspapers, The Washington Post--support D.C. statehood. You can be assured that the District is--those who are working as part of the Tennessee Plan for the necessary vote--are trying to get an even bigger vote than that. We haven't had a vote for statehood now for decades. This is an entirely new effort on the part of the City. In fact, the best expression of where the residents stand on statehood came about 4 years ago when we had our first official Senate hearing on statehood. Now, I knew there would be some residents who came. What I did not anticipate is that they would come in such large numbers that, after the standing-room-only room where the hearing was being held was filled, the Senate would have to open up other rooms in order to accommodate all the residents. So they have voted. They have voted with their feet. What the District wants now and what Statehood Yes is trying its very best to get is an official recognition, an official voice from the residents of whether they want statehood or not. And the best way to get that is the way they began today, with bipartisan support, with an AOL executive who lives in the District chairing the effort to get that vote. D.C. showed up. They showed up in record numbers when the question was: Do you want to listen to the first official hearing in the Senate on D.C. voting rights--sorry--on D.C. statehood? I am glad I mentioned D.C. voting rights there because the District didn't come to statehood easily. When Tom Davis--Representative Tom Davis, who decided several years ago to retire from the Congress--was here, he approached me about a bipartisan effort to get a vote, just a vote, in the people's House. Tom, a Republican, had been in the Republican leadership. He was in the majority. He and I worked together on what was really an important effort. Utah had just missed getting the vote. Utah may be the most Republican State in the union, and the reason it missed getting the vote was heartbreaking. Its young people fan out every year to other countries as part of their missionary work. In past eras, those missionaries had been counted in the way they must because they have to come home after 2 years. For some reason they weren't counted, and Utah went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, but did not prevail. So it was quite a bipartisan effort. I remember working not only with the Utah delegation, but with the Governor of the State and with the House and the Senate of that State, who approved that bipartisan effort to achieve a House vote for D.C. residents and a House vote for Utah. That effort succeeded in the House and the Senate at a time when the Democrats controlled both parties. What kept it from fruition is also heartbreaking, and that is that there was a rider from the National Rifle Association attached that, in essence, said, yes, you can give D.C. a Member of Congress if--if--the District eliminates all of its gun safety laws. That is an offer that had to be refused. It was a cynical offer. How can you be in the Nation's Capital and not have strong gun safety laws? Not only do 700,000 of us live here, but the most controversial figures in the world come here. Heads of state frequent our streets and our restaurants. They come by in caravans of cars every day. So it was an offer that had to be refused. But it does show that the District has tried to find incremental ways to statehood and been rebuffed. Even as I speak, there is a new and important effort going on; and that is the District has moved, pursuant to a budget autonomy referendum, to manage its own budget without coming to the House of Representatives or the Senate. For this referendum, The District was sued. It lost in the U.S. district court and went to the court of appeals. As someone who practiced constitutional law, I can tell you I had never seen what resulted. The U.S. court of appeals eliminated--the District Court decision, and submitted the issue of the constitutionality and the legality of budget autonomy to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia held that the District's budget autonomy referendum is valid. So, the irony is that the only court decision upholds budget autonomy for the District. Understand what we mean by that. It is the same autonomy that every Member here not only cherishes, but insists upon. It is your own money. It has nothing to do with this House, which contributes nothing. The only thing the House contributes to the District of Columbia is what it contributes to everybody else. It doesn't give us a thing. Yet if you go out in the streets of the District of Columbia, you should be envious of what we have done with our economy because what you will see is building going on everywhere. People are moving into the District, not moving out. We know how to support ourselves. We have got more than $2 billion in surplus funds. How many Members of this House can boast that? So you can see how we object to those who dare tell us how to run our city, particularly as we see this House floundering on the Zika virus, a health emergency, and we still can't get it done. D.C. doesn't have that kind of problem. We can govern ourself without interference by others. The District is particularly to be complimented on this longer effort to achieve D.C. statehood. It has been going on now for the better part of 6 months. Too often the city and its residents have grown angry when Congress did something to our city. There was an arrest led by the former Mayor when he was Mayor and members of the council when there was an attachment to our budget after we had gotten every single rider or attachment removed that had been undemocratically attached by this House. People were arrested. But the problem with that approach is not that civil disobedience is not to be expected when somebody takes away rights that every American citizen should have. The problem with it is you can't wait for the Congress to do something really horrendous to you and then say that we are now in the mode to get our rights. It has to be a sustained effort. What the District is doing now as it tries to use the Tennessee Plan to get statehood is part of a sustained effort. Today I called for a yearlong plan after that because I do not suffer the illusion that a House that can't pass a Zika virus is going to reach into its long lost democratic treasure house and give the District statehood, but I do certainly believe that it won't happen unless you have the kind of effort that is going on now. What the District is doing in its effort to achieve statehood, using the Tennessee Plan with the bipartisan effort announced today, to me, is particularly noteworthy. When I come to the House floor, as I often do, as I am this evening, to speak about statehood, you are within your rights to say: Says who? My answer to that--when the vote comes in in November, with this question on the ballot answered by the residents of the District of Columbia, I will be able to say: Says who? Says the American citizens who live in your Nation's Capital, who also happen to pay the highest taxes per capita in the United States of America; that is who. That is what I was will say. I say to my Republican friends in the District of Columbia, you have sent a worthy signal to this House that bipartisanship for D.C. statehood begins in the District of Columbia, and now it must be taken up by both parties in the House and Senate as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the Honorable Joe Hockey, the Australian Ambassador to the United States, who has become the honorary patron of Washington DC Youth Rugby. The Embassy of Australia has been a partner with Washington DC Youth Rugby for the past six years, reaching out to underserved youth in the District of Columbia's inner city, promoting health and physical fitness, and teaching valuable life skills through the international sport of rugby. Recognizing rugby as the fastest growing sport at the youth level, the Embassy hosted over 300 guests at a sports diplomacy reception on August 25, with proceeds benefiting Washington DC Youth Rugby. That evening, Ambassador Hockey will be highlighting the participation of the Australian Wallabies and USA Eagles in the Olympics for the first time since 1924. Founded in 2004 with just seven players to field a team, Washington DC Youth Rugby has grown from a summer-only touch program in Northeast DC to sponsoring a tackle program for high school boys and girls at Bell Multicultural High School in Columbia Heights. While using rugby as a vehicle for social inclusion and youth development, Washington DC Youth Rugby is offering flag rugby in over 20 District elementary and middle schools in physical education classes and afterschool program. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in thanking the Embassy of Australia for showcasing sports diplomacy in DC and making a difference for the youth of our city in terms of health, self-esteem, teamwork and social skills development. I would also like to thank the coaches, volunteers, donors, partner schools, students, parents and alumni of Washington DC Youth Rugby on their steady growth and accomplishments over the last 12 years.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Displaying the Flag in Honor of District of Columbia Mayors Act, a bill that would make a small--but significant to the nearly 700,000 residents of D.C.--change to federal law by adding the Mayor of the District of Columbia to the list of principals for whom the president can order the flags be flown at half-staff. Current law states that the president shall make this order ``upon the death of principal figures of the United States Government and the Governor of a State, territory, or possession, as a mark of respect to their memory.'' Surely the death of a current or former D.C. mayor should qualify as a principal. My bill would add D.C. mayors, who have many of the same responsibilities as state and territory governors, to the current list of officials. Congress already understands that the District of Columbia deserves a place among the states for certain honors, and this minor addition is not as great as others Congress has already recognized. We have already won congressional recognition of the District of Columbia in situations where the city was overlooked while honoring the states. For example, our legislation ensured that the District of Columbia War Memorial honored only District residents who served in World War I and that D.C.'s Frederick Douglass statue sits in the Capitol alongside statues from the 50 states. I 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. Legislation was also enacted to give D.C. a coin after it was omitted from legislation creating coins for the 50 states. Additionally, the flag of the District is displayed among the flags of the fifty states in the tunnel connecting the House office buildings to the Capitol, and legislation was needed to require the armed services to display the District flag whenever the flags of the states are displayed. My bill to add the mayor to the list of principals is a continuation of my efforts to ensure that the District of Columbia receives fair treatment, even when we have no vote on the House floor and no representation in the Senate. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that the Nation's Capital has the strongest gun safety laws in the country. Yet the Capitol complex was on lockdown Tuesday as D.C. Police chased suspects armed with a machine gun and shooting at police near the Capitol. People and their guns travel in interstate commerce instantly making our country's gun problem national, not local. D.C.'s strong gun safety laws are still on the books, despite pro-gun lawsuits and incessantly proposed Republican riders. But local and State laws to protect our people are undermined by inaction by this Congress. The Charleston loophole is the decent place to begin. We sat in on the House floor because we could not go home in silence for July Fourth. Today, we declare no recess from the gun show loophole until universal background checks become the law of the land.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me, and I rise in strong opposition to this bill. Republicans have a hard time winning, especially on abortion. Already there are no Federal funds for abortion except rape, incest, or life of the mother. Already religious objections must be accommodated. But this bill allows the employer to veto his employee's reproductive health choices. How un-American. Let's thank the Supreme Court of the United States that, in an unusual move, has just sent a case back to the Justice Department for an appropriate compromise after nuns did not want to fill out a form absolving them of making a decision on abortion for their employees. The Court said, you can find an answer without depriving these employees of their healthcare choices. Some Republicans won't be satisfied until abortion is unavailable nationwide, as Congress has done, to its shame, for poor women in the District of Columbia, whose local tax funds cannot be used for abortion services. This choice belongs to women and to women alone.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the Citi Open Tennis Tournament, taking place July 16-24, 2016, in Rock Creek Park, and to recognize these dates as ``Tennis Week'' in the District of Columbia. All are invited to attend the 48th installment of this Washington tennis tradition, a cultural, economic, and community staple in the region. The tennis tournament, now known as the Citi Open Tennis Tournament, was founded in 1969 by tennis legend and Hall of Famer Donald Dell, along with business partner John Harris, with the support of Arthur Ashe. Mr. Ashe declared he would participate in the inaugural tournament under two conditions: the tournament would take place in a naturally integrated neighborhood, and it would be played on public land where all people could come together, enjoy the sport, and share the experience. Today, the tournament remains in its original location on 16th & Kennedy Streets NW, in Rock Creek Park. In 1972, Mr. Dell gave the tournament sanction to the Washington Tennis & Education Foundation (then called the Washington Area Tennis Patrons Foundation), a nonprofit organization supporting local education causes for over 1,200 low-income and underserved children. The Citi Open Tennis Tournament draws the best players in the world, making D.C. a global tennis destination. The tournament is also seen on television in 182 countries. A 2015 economic impact study found that the estimated total gross impact of the Citi Open on the regional economy is more than $28.2 million. The tournament is the only Association of Tennis Professionals 500 level event in the United States, and it is one of only four professional tennis tournaments combining men's and women's events. It is also recognized as an international level tournament by the Women's Tennis Association. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing ``Tennis Week in the District of Columbia'' for the Citi Open Tennis Tournament, celebrated July 16-24.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the nation's community corrections professionals and the vital role they play in enhancing public safety throughout the United States. In honor of the invaluable contributions of these dedicated public servants, the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) and its associated members have designated the week of July 17-23 Pretrial, Probation and Parole Supervision Week 2016. I thank the thousands of men and women who perform these important public safety duties, and urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in support of the APPA's week-long recognition efforts this year. Here in my congressional district, the nation's capital, thousands of women and men serve as pretrial, probation and parole officers or administrators. As public servants, these constituents, along with many other Americans, commit themselves on a daily basis to helping improve the lives of those involved in the criminal justice system. Mr. Speaker, the work of these professionals ultimately results in stronger and safer communities for all. Community corrections professionals are responsible for the supervision of adult and juvenile offenders in communities throughout our nation. These trained professionals go above and beyond the call of duty by connecting their clients to supportive services, community based resources, employment opportunities, housing programs and other evidence based practices that help individuals successfully complete supervision and reenter society. Community corrections professionals strive to provide these services and support, while simultaneously providing client surveillance, crime prevention and restorative justice. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in acknowledging the impact community corrections professionals have on the quality of life of so many Americans, and recognizing July 17-23 as Pretrial, Probation and Parole Supervision Week 2016.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, in honor of the memory of Brishell Jones, who at 16, with her friends, was gunned down in a drive-by shooting, but who never received a moment of silence on this House floor.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring the Washington Renegades Rugby Football Club. Founded in 1998, the Renegades are the first rugby club in the United States to actively recruit gay players, and are a founding member of International Gay Rugby (IGR), an association that today is comprised of over 70 gay and gay-supportive rugby clubs worldwide. The Renegades represent Washington, D.C. in Division III and Division IV rugby. The club's Division III side is the three-time defending champions of the Mid-Atlantic Conference Central Division, having reached the national quarter/semi-finals in 2014. The club's Division IV side has also made two consecutive playoff appearances. Over this past Memorial Day weekend, the Washington Renegades finished the 2016 Bingham Cup Tournament in Nashville, Tennessee as the most successful club overall in attendance. The Bingham Cup is the Championship of IGR, and is named for gay rugby player Mark Bingham, of the San Francisco Fog Rugby Football Club, who lost his life on September 11, 2001. Bingham, along with fellow passengers and crew of United Flight 93, is widely credited with preventing the hijackers from reaching their intended target. Fielding three teams in three separate divisions, the Renegades A side (the Blues) reached the final four of the main competition--the Mark Bingham Cup--losing in the semifinal 15-5 to the eventual champions, the Melbourne Chargers from Melbourne, Australia. The Renegades B side (the Reds) won their division, defeating the Boston Ironsides 56-0 in the final to take the Mark Bingham Shield. The Renegades C side--affectionately called the ``Silver'' side due the age of some of its players--went to the finals of its competition, losing 12-10 to the Lost Souls of Dallas, Texas in the Challenger Cup Final. The Renegades are already looking forward to another season in USA Rugby competition this fall as well as to the next Bingham Cup in 2018. The Renegades are more than just exceptional athletes; they are also exceptional citizens. They volunteer with such programs as Food and Friends, preparing hundreds of Thanksgiving meals for people living with HIV/AIDS and other life-threatening illnesses. They have held school supply drives and holiday toy drives, and have donated Nook electronic readers to schoolchildren. They have conducted rugby clinics for youth in the District of Columbia, and were featured in a series of after-school activities dedicated to having dads or father representatives participate in sports drills and related activities with their children. The Renegades have been recognized by the D.C. Mayor and D.C. Council for their athletic achievement and charitable activities, and by the U.S. Department of the Interior for their efforts in cleaning and maintaining the original Flight 93 Memorial in Shankesville, Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in commending the Washington Renegades and wishing them continued success in the important work they do of modeling sporting excellence and breaking down barriers on the field, and serving the community off the field. The Washington Renegades are amateurs in the truest sense of the word, for the word ``amateur'' derives from the Latin word for ``love.'' The Renegades do what they do not for money or glory, but for love--love for their teammates, love for their game, and love for the city and country they call home.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment. The amendment prohibits the District of Columbia from using its local funds, consisting of local taxes and fees, to enforce a local nondiscrimination law, the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act, giving employers license, in the name of religion, to discriminate against employees, their spouses and their dependents based on their private, constitutionally protected reproductive health decisions. Contrary to the sponsor's claim, the D.C. law does not require employers to provide insurance coverage for reproductive health decisions. The law states expressly: ``This section shall not be construed to require an employer to provide insurance coverage related to a reproductive health decision.'' The amendment permits employers to fire a woman for having an abortion due to rape, or to decline to hire a woman for using in vitro fertilization, or to fire a man for using condoms, or to reduce the salary of a parent for buying birth control for his or her child. The D.C. law is valid under both the U.S. Constitution and federal law. Indeed, the law has been in effect for more than a year, and there appear to have been no lawsuits challenging it. Under the U.S. Constitution, laws may limit religious exercise if they are neutral, generally applicable and rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. The D.C. law applies to all employers, does not target religion and promotes workplace equality. Under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which applies to D.C., laws may substantially burden religious exercise if they further a compelling governmental interest in the least restrictive means. D.C. has a compelling interest in eliminating discrimination, and the D.C. law is the least restrictive means to do so. The D.C. law protects religious liberty. The law is subject to constitutional and statutory exceptions to non-discrimination laws. The Constitution's narrow ministerial exception allows religious organizations to make employment decisions for ministers and ministerial employees for any reason whatsoever. D.C. law permits religious and political organizations to make employment decisions based on religion and political views. Under the D.C. law, employees must be willing to carry out employers' missions and directives. I urge Members to vote NO on this amendment in order to protect employees' reproductive health decisions, workplace equality and D.C.'s right to self-government.