Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Oh, you have made such an important point because you say, if not this, what? The Democrats--we on this side of the aisle--are willing to sit down with you to come up with whatever bill we can compromise on. We just have to be shown a bill. The reason I am going to introduce the GROW AMERICA Act is so that we can begin there. Maybe they don't want that. Okay. Let's bargain down from there, but we can't do nothing. We can't go home and say, ``Well, we did nothing,'' and we certainly can't simply wait for our friends on the other side of the aisle. Now, I want my friend from California to know that representatives of the states were in the House today and I went to say a few words to them. They were in one of our committee rooms--a group that calls itself the ``Big Seven.'' They were the leaders in the States. They were the Governors, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National League of Cities, the United States Conference of Mayors. They were begging for this bill, so they had their own meeting here. I think that it behooves us to ramp up the pressure, we who are on the inside. When you see that those who represent the infrastructure we are talking about are on the Hill, pleading, without an answer from either side, well, our side is trying to answer; and because there is so much bipartisanship, there is just no reason that we shouldn't be sitting down and trying to figure this out.

Ms. NORTON. I do. You talked about the project in your district, and that project with the crack in the road is emblematic of what is happening in the United States. Mr. Garamendi, they can't even start on that repair because that is a major project. So another patch, as we call it, or short-term funding, means that the backlog of major projects remains. You can't start what America needs, which are major projects. If we could put them all here in this Chamber, they would pile up to the ceiling. They simply have to sit there with 6-month patches or even a 1-year patch. Yours is a major Federal highway, and California can't do anything about it. I went to such a highway in my own city, and that is why I brought this poster. The Washington Post picked it up and says, ``Norton Uses Bridge to Make a Point.'' It is interesting. Although this bridge also has real defects, I was using it to make another point, that every form of transportation depends upon this bridge in the Nation's Capital: the intercity buses; the intracity buses; the street car, if you are going to a major highway; the Metro--all of it comes to a head there. A point that you touched upon, which is seldom made here, is a point I tried to make when I went to the H Street--or Hopscotch--Bridge, and that is that the failure to rebuild that bridge is keeping a complete overhaul of Union Station from occurring, not to mention a whole new community that would be built over it, because they can't move on those major economic development projects until the bridge is done, and it will take 5 years to rebuild that bridge. So you see, Mr. Garamendi, we are not just holding up obvious infrastructure projects; we are holding up major economic development projects that simply can't get started until the roads and bridges are fixed.

Ms. NORTON. Well, again, Mr. Garamendi, you have my thanks, and you should have the thanks of this entire House. I am glad you closed with the program you did--you talked about the ports--because in the GROW AMERICA Act is a multimodal freight program. This is the first time it has ever been in the transportation bill. Now, you gave an example: multimodal, because we are trying to make sure that rail and highway and port projects are coordinated together. That is the efficient use of all modes of transportation together. Here on the East Coast, The Panama Canal is coming and now you have every single port trying to get that business, and you have the private sector investing like mad in railroads because they want that business, and the buses want that business. The private sector, Mr. Garamendi, is doing its job, but you can't, in fact, in the States do the ports and the freight all by yourself or with the private sector alone. And so this bill, the GROW AMERICA Act, brings it all together, gives us for the first time something that we have had in ground transportation, multimodal, but we have not had it in freight transportation so that those ports you are focusing on would grow, and we grow them here, just as you said, buying American. I thank you once again for all you have done.

Ms. NORTON. Yes, I certainly do.

Ms. NORTON. Again, I thank the gentleman for the leadership he has taken on not only this bill but on infrastructure in our country. I did want to say a few more words because in these last 6 days we can't leave words unsaid. I want to say that what my chief frustration is--there is really no serious thinking going on in this House about ways to replace the highway trust fund except what is in the GROW AMERICA Act, and that, of course, would be for one 6-year period. The reason I bring this up is because I want the American people to help us think about what has happened to the highway trust fund. We have got to bring it together this time and grow America with repatriated taxes that would otherwise not be there. But let's think of why we have to do that. The efficiency that we now have and we ought to be proud of that, but it means that that 1950s approach, which worked so magically, is now entirely out of date, and there have got to be other ways to fund transportation and infrastructure. I was very frustrated that in the last bill, we call it MAP-21, there were not even pilots to guide us, like the so-called VMT miles driven that all of us, even those of us who are in hybrid cars, those who therefore don't contribute as much on the present highway fund, would play our part. We need to sit around a table right here in the House and figure out what to do in the long run because we didn't do that last July when this bill was extended. There are even some people talking about, well, it can go to July because it runs out in July. Yeah, it runs out in July, and then look what happens. Treasury funds will have to be transferred just to make sure that we keep level funding going, and that level funding, meaning just base funding, will mean that no new major projects will be started in the States because of what has come to be called lack of certainty. I know of no major project that can be finished in 6 months. If it takes you 2 or 3 years, leave alone the 5 years like my H St Bridge project I spoke about, then you don't start it at all. So the money just lies fallow. It goes to no good major need. So who is to blame? They are going to look to us and say, What are you doing? That is why we are coming on this floor. They are going to look to us to stop doing the same thing over and over again and think of something that we didn't do the last time. These short term patches are what we did the last time.

Ms. NORTON. Meanwhile, as you indicated, GROW AMERICA would be a way to do it for at least 6 years. I went to speak with the various organizations representing the States that were here today. I had my staff look at what the States are doing. Frankly, I found the States in a desperate position. There are States that have already done gas tax increases or reforms of their own. You have got to be pretty desperate to raise your own tax and leave ours where it was 20 years ago. Iowa, Wyoming, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, the District of Columbia, South Dakota, these State have nothing in common, except that they couldn't continue to go on without funding. Six States are making progress on trying to raise their own gas tax in the absence of our doing something. Those States, in the same way, don't have anything in common. When I say ``making progress,'' it generally means one House has at least done it, and they are trying to get the other House to raise the gas tax. They are Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Utah, and Washington State. Then there are another seven States which are considering changes because they just can't wait any longer to get long-term projects going: Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Vermont. When I came into the meeting today, there was someone from the South Dakota Department of Transportation speaking, and it was interesting because they raised the gas tax in South Dakota, a very red State, and it included an amendment also to raise the speed limit by 5 miles an hour. I think that would make it something like 80 miles an hour out there. He said--and he just laughed at this--that, although they had raised the gas tax on the residents in the legislature, nobody talked about anything except the increase the speed limit. That is how little the notion that you shouldn't raise your gas tax had become in a State like South Dakota. The States are way ahead of us and looking to us for leadership. These 6-month increments are the exact opposite of leadership-- delaying, as I indicated before, Mr. Garamendi, billions of dollars of other infrastructure that the Federal Government wouldn't have to pay for often, that can't get done, like a road or a bridge. That is why I went to such an example in my own district. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record a list of the top five critical infrastructure projects in my own district, the Nation's Capital. The National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board has also written to this region's bipartisan delegation, and I would like to have its resolution also included in the Record.

Ms. NORTON. I want to emphasize, as we approach the end, how little of a partisan problem we are talking about this evening. Republican Governors have signed the laws that I have referred to. The committee--Mr. Garamendi will remember this--had Republican Governors, State department of transportation executives, cities, counties, regional councils, and the rest before us, and the notion of devolution came up. This hearing was interesting because when devolution has come up, and devolution simply means that if States are raising their gas tax. Well, let's stop doing a Federal highway or surface transportation bill. These States are raising their gas tax, and they are waiting for us to raise ours so that the partnership that is represented by State gas taxes and Federal gas taxes will remain whole until we find some other way to do this.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Garamendi spoke about the Eisenhower years, which gave us the present highway trust fund. Its lasting effects make it a monumental contribution to American law. Our generation has the obligation to move on, now that we have become so efficient that the highway trust fund, as set up 50 years ago, is obsolete. I remind the House that, during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln built the railroad system. How could you do that during a time when the country is split apart, and in this House, we can't figure out a way to get a highway surface transportation bill passed? I looked up the latest figures--actually, 2015--on how our country ranks today. We ought to compare that to what Lincoln did, now going on 150 years ago, and what Eisenhower did 50 years ago. We now rank 25th in the world for infrastructure quality. We are behind every last one of our allies, and now, we see some developing countries creeping forward. We better watch out for China. They are not in the top 30 now, but they are going to get there soon. I remind this House that the way in which this country became the heavyweight that it is in the world was through the development of its infrastructure. We had to somehow create a seamless infrastructure that would go from across the continental United States, from east to west and from north to south. With that, everything else became possible. Without that, we are simply going to be overtaken by nations that are far behind us now but, as I indicated are getting caught up. I wanted to say a word about at least one other section of the GROW AMERICA Act because it relates to transit systems which are under special strain and which, interestingly enough, are embraced by people, from big cities to the smallest towns. When I say ``transit systems,'' I am talking about everything from light rail and street cars that we have here in a big city like the Nation's Capital to rapid transit and buses that rural America depends upon and that are simply breaking down and unable to handle the traffic. There is a very special provision of $115 billion to invest in these transit systems. The reason that this investment would be so acceptable is that there is no part of America that it does not touch. I am not talking about, for example, subway systems of the kind we have in the District of Columbia and New York. I am talking about light rail and street cars and buses and rapid transit buses that small-town America uses and depends upon, and that is in the GROW AMERICA Act. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, the Democrats on the Transportation and Infrastructure committee are having a roundtable where each member is going to discuss a project that is stuck because we have not passed a surface transportation bill. What we are trying to do at 2:30 p.m. tomorrow is put a face on what infrastructure means. What infrastructure means, for example, in the District of Columbia, is the H Street or Hopscotch Bridge. I didn't take on one of the bridges that is simply falling down. There are altogether 31 projects in the District of Columbia that are awaiting funding. I have asked that the projects be put into the Record. Some of you would be interested if you were from the District, but it doesn't matter. You all have projects like this in your districts. Unless we raise the ante, unless we make this an offer that this House cannot refuse, we are going to keep patching this bill until there is nothing left to patch. This is a House that does not move, even in a crisis. We saw that with the Department of Homeland Security appropriation, that they simply would not give up. Finally, when the administration wouldn't change its immigration executive order, they simply had to let it pass. That is how we figured that one out. Surely, there is a more rational way to figure out a surface transportation bill. I am working--at least on my side of the aisle-- with 1-minutes this week, with the Special Order hour Mr. Garamendi has taken out, with social media, and with our work with the many organizations who have come here because this is National Highway and Transportation Week, as they have so declared. We are trying our best. In this case, we are not trying to reach a compromise. We are simply trying to get to a bill so that we can simply sit down and talk about it. If you don't want to talk about the GROW AMERICA bill, put your own version of a bill, but don't insult the American people by giving us nothing except another patch. I appreciate that, at least on my own committee, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, there is an earnest effort to find a solution to this crisis. I commend Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for working together in search of a solution. I call upon the Ways and Means Committee, through whom the funds must come, to do their job. Together, we can do this. We are not going to let this House rest; we are not going to drop this issue, even on May 31, when the funds are set to run out and we have to find a patch. We are going to keep coming to this floor so that the American people know that there are at least some Members of this House who are struggling to get a surface transportation bill, are earnest about it, and won't give up. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining in the hour?

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record that the House should focus on America's priorities instead of resuming the attack on women's health.

Ms. NORTON. I thank my good friend from New Jersey for her extraordinary remarks and for her generosity in yielding. Mr. Speaker, this rule has the high stink of both unfairness and discrimination. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted to overturn a valid local District of Columbia law but denied D.C.'s locally elected officials even the courtesy of defending that law, which is aimed at keeping employers from discriminating against women and men for their private reproductive health decisions, the most personal decisions Americans make off the job. Of critical importance, the D.C. local law requires that all employees carry out the mission of the organization or business, whatever its mission is. The disapproval resolution was only added to the Rules Committee agenda yesterday, literally at the same time that the committee began its meeting. And no member of the majority showed up at the hearing to defend the disapproval resolution until I noted this unprecedented absence. The committee then hurriedly summoned the subcommittee chair, who spoke without any prepared testimony. No wonder--how can any American defend an employer who imposes his religion or personal philosophical beliefs on an employee's private reproductive matters by sanctioning the employee because the employer disagrees, for example, with an employee's use of in vitro fertilization to become pregnant or of birth control for family planning? The employer has no right to even know about such private matters. But if he learns of an employee's reproductive preferences, the D.C. law requires that he must not use this private matter to discriminate on the job. Not surprisingly, we do not expect this disapproval resolution to be considered on the House floor--in the light of day--until late tonight, for fear that the American people will watch Congress sanction, for the first time ever, discrimination against women and men for their reproductive health decisions and see Republicans violate their own professed mantra for local control of local affairs by overturning the law of a local government for the first time in a quarter of a century. I thank my good friend for yielding.

Ms. NORTON. I thank my good friend from Massachusetts for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the many Democrats who have rallied to the defense of reproductive health decisions of men and women in the District of Columbia, especially since this is a resolution to overturn a District of Columbia law that everyone in this Chamber will be able to vote on, except me. I wish to respond to a set of untruths you have heard from the other side that, for example, the D.C. law is an assault on religion. On the contrary, it protects an employer's religious beliefs. He can hold those religious beliefs if that is part of what his organization does. The employee must advocate those beliefs. Whatever the organization or business, the employee must advocate the employer's views, not his own. What the employer cannot do is to go into the employee's bedroom to find out what kind of reproductive choices he makes on his own as a private matter. Abortion has been raised as if it were in this bill. In fact, just the opposite--the D.C. law makes it clear that insurance is not involved, paying for abortion is not involved. Republicans have done almost the inconceivable. They have resumed, with this disapproval resolution, the war on women, by adding men. The D.C. law protects all employees from job discrimination by the employer for their reproductive health choices. For example, if the employer discriminates against a male employee who has contributed sperm for in vitro fertilization to help his wife become pregnant, that male employee is also protected. There has been an attempt to tie the D.C. law to abortion; but, if an employee refuses to carry out--indeed, to advocate--the mission of the organization that opposes abortion, then that employee can be fired. In fact, you can ask that employee before that employee is hired: Will you advocate vigorously against abortion the way this organization does? That employee must say yes, or that employee may not insist on any right to be hired. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the manager of this bill never defended the bill on the merits; instead, he defended the tyranny of Federal power over local matters.

Ms. NORTON. The Home Rule Act, in its terms, Mr. Speaker, does not-- and it says so--envision overturning local law, and it says so in its terms. There are only a few matters that the Home Rule Act mentions that cannot be enacted, and the matter on the floor is not one of them. Republicans have been champions for federalism and local control; yet they are trying to impose their own preferences on a local jurisdiction whose Member cannot even vote for or against it. This is a double whammy. Their goal here is to resume the war on women. The predicate for getting to the Nation's women is the D.C. Home Rule Act. It goes after D.C.'s right to self-government and women at the same time. The coming attraction in your district is that this bill or a version of it is pending all over the country. Stop it here, or it will spread throughout the United States of America.

Ms. NORTON. I thank my good friend, because I would like to correct some misstatements from the other side. Mr. Speaker, the former Mayor and the former Attorney General never detailed what their concern was, but just in case, the District passed an amendment that made it clear that insurance and abortion are not covered by this bill. I want to be explicit. A pro-life organization is not required to hire someone who advocates against abortion. An employee must carry out and must advocate whatever is the mission of the organization. This bill has an exception for organizations' religious and political views. Both must be carried out. The 1973 Home Rule Act has not come to this floor before because only three times in 25 years has it been taken up, and that was mostly because D.C. mistakenly wandered into Federal matters. That is why this Federal authority was retained in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, not to overturn local law whenever the other side simply disagreed with it. I thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Unfortunately, our thoughts this evening have to be with the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Elijah Cummings, who could not be here due to ongoing events in his Baltimore district, but his statement strongly opposing H.J. Res. 43 will be entered into the Record. Madam Speaker, resentment does not begin to relate our response to this unprecedented disapproval resolution. Republicans this evening continue their war on women, but this time, they have added men in the District of Columbia for good measure. This resolution is wildly undemocratic. It is a naked violation of the Nation's founding principle of local control of local affairs, and it is profoundly offensive to D.C. residents. This resolution uniquely targets my district, but every Member will get to vote on it except for me, the District's elected Representative. Notwithstanding its late-night consideration, Democrats will make sure Americans understand this inflammatory resolution. For the first time ever, the House is voting to license employers to discriminate against employees for their private, constitutionally protected reproductive health decisions. For the first time in a quarter of a century, the House is voting to overturn the law of a local jurisdiction. The D.C. bill stops employers from job discrimination based on the reproductive health decision of employees, their spouses, or their dependents. To name just a few of the horribles permitted by this resolution: employers may fire a woman for having an abortion due to rape or a man for using condoms. Or to use actual examples in the United States today, Emily Herx of Indiana was fired for using in vitro fertilization to become pregnant. Jennifer Maudlin of Ohio was fired for having nonmarital sex and becoming pregnant. Christina Dias of Ohio was fired for using artificial insemination to become pregnant. Shaela Evenson of Montana was fired for using artificial insemination to become pregnant. Michelle McCusker of New York was fired for having nonmarital sex and becoming pregnant. The D.C. bill is constitutional and legal. 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. bill applies to all employers, does not target religion, and promotes workplace equality. Under the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 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. bill is the least restrictive means to do so. The D.C. bill certainly protects religious liberty. The bill is subject to constitutional and statutory exceptions to discrimination laws. The narrow constitutional ministerial exception allows religious organizations to make employment decisions for ministers and ministerial employees for any reason whatsoever. The exception in title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which I enforced as chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, permits religious organizations to make employment decisions based on religion. D.C. law permits religious and political organizations to make employment decisions based on religion and political views; thus, employers in D.C. may continue to make employment decisions based on their religious and other beliefs, and their employees must be willing to carry out the employer's mission and directives with no exceptions. The D.C. bill does not require employers to provide health insurance; instead, it requires equal treatment of employees. Both the text and the legislative history of the D.C. bill make that clear. Nevertheless, when Members of Congress express concerns, the D.C. government, in order to eliminate any doubt, passed a new version of the bill that says, ``This act shall not be construed to require an employer to provide insurance coverage related to reproductive health decisions.'' This provision is in effect now, but, under the Home Rule Act, a D.C. bill is not final until the end of the congressional review period. How absurd is that? This disapproval resolution is a deliberate abuse of congressional authority over the district. In 1973, Congress passed the Home Rule Act to give the district the authority to legislate on local matters with a few enumerated exceptions and ``to relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially local District matters.'' D.C. employment and reproductive health laws are not among those exceptions. This evening, Madam Speaker, I ask my Republican colleagues to live up to their own recently passed fiscal year 2016 budget which calls for the Federal Government to let States and cities govern their own affairs. ``America is a diverse nation. Our cities, States, and local communities are best equipped and naturally inclined to develop solutions that will serve their populations. But far too often, local leaders are limited by numerous Federal dictates,'' so said the Republicans in their own budget this very year. I ask the majority to live up to its professed principles of local control and of local affairs, Federalism and limited government. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the disapproval resolution to protect employees' reproductive health decisions, to protect workplace equality, and to protect the District's right to self-government as taxpaying American citizens. I insert in the Record the President's veto threat on this resolution. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, April 30, 2015. Statement of Administration Policy H.J. Res. 43--Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014 (Rep. Black (R-TN) and 46 co-sponsors) The Administration strongly opposes H.J. Res. 43, which would overturn the District of Columbia's Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014 (the Act). The Act added reproductive health decisions to the list of employment non-discrimination protections included under the basis of sex, which had previously included pregnancy, childbirth, related medical conditions, and breastfeeding. By taking away this newly-added protection, H.J. Res. 43 would undermine the reproductive freedom and private health care decisions of the citizens of the District of Columbia. This legislation would give employers cover to fire employees for the personal decisions they make about birth control and their reproductive health. These personal decisions should not jeopardize anyone's job or terms of employment. The Act preserves the current exception in the District's Human Rights Law for religious entities and does not impose additional requirements on employers, contrary to their personal beliefs, to provide insurance coverage related to reproductive health decisions. H.J. Res 43 would also have the unacceptable effect of undermining the will of District of Columbia citizens. While the Home Rule Act of 1973 created a procedure for the Congress to overturn laws passed by the District of Columbia, the Congress has not exercised this authority in over two decades and should refrain from doing so in this circumstance, as well. The Administration urges the Congress to adopt the President's FY 2016 Budget proposal allowing the District to enact local laws and spend local funds in the same way as other cities and States. If the President were presented with H.J. Res. 43. his senior advisors would recommend that he veto this resolution.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), my good friend.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. May I say how much I appreciate that the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Meadows, made every effort to try to find some accommodation with the District of Columbia. I certainly appreciated that so much. We were, unfortunately, unable to do so because the exemption he sought would have swallowed the equal employment laws. There would have been nothing left to them, but he tried very hard, and I appreciate the spirit in which he has acted as our subcommittee chair. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), my good friend.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. This resolution represents tyranny on two levels: the tyranny the Framers most feared, by the Federal Government interfering with local government; and the tyranny Americans especially fear today, interference with the most private decision they make, the decision concerning their reproductive health. Vote ``no.'' Stop this tyranny in the District of Columbia before it spreads throughout the United States. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, may I point out that, far from not discriminating, I have named five women in five different States who have been discriminated against because of language precisely of the kind the District of Columbia bill needs to avoid. It is true that the former Mayor and the former attorney general had some issues with the bill. They are no longer in office. Nevertheless, the current Mayor and the current city council have reviewed those issues. May I say that the Mayor never offered any examples of the kind of interference with religious or other rights. He was referring to the council, and the Mayor, nevertheless, reviewed his objections, and unanimously, the D.C. City Council and Mayor Bowser have, in fact, endorsed this bill. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), my good friend.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just to correct the gentleman that the church would have to buy insurance to cover abortion, the church is completely--every church is completely--exempt from this law. Or, as he indicated, that a pro- choice group would have to hire a candidate who believes in abortion, on the contrary, a pro-choice group can ask a candidate if that candidate is willing to carry out the mission of the organization against abortion, and if that candidate has any compunction, that candidate can, indeed, be refused employment; and if such a person is on staff, that person can be fired. You cannot be on somebody's staff and then take a position against the mission of that business or organization. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), my good friend.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Local Task Forces on 21st Century Policing Act, to assist localities in carrying out some of the recommendations of President Obama's Task Force on 21st Century Policing and the Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, both of which detail the need to strengthen relations between local communities and local law enforcement. The bill would provide grants to local police departments to create local task forces on 21st century policing to bring police, representatives of the community, and public officials together to identify issues in their own communities, best policing practices for local police, and other ways to strengthen relations between the community and police departments. Existing funds from the Department of Justice's Grant Program would support local governments establishing the task forces. The task forces, modeled after President Obama's Task Force on 21st Century Policing, would allow local communities to identify the best ways to create an effective partnership between local law enforcement and the community they serve while reducing crime and increasing trust. The task forces could serve as a resource to address racial profiling in the Unites States by creating a partnership that encourages each party to take ownership of the issues and then proceeding to implement practical policing practices acceptable to all concerned. The creation of task forces could be an important step toward easing the tensions between local law enforcement and the community. In addition, the task forces would serve to engage local law enforcement and local stakeholders in a transparent public process instead of being at odds. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.