Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I must reject the gentlewoman's desire to protect organizations or residents in D.C. No resident in D.C. has asked any Member of this body to protect them except the Member standing before you, and that Member can't even protect them with a vote on this floor. This bill was passed unanimously by the D.C. City Council. If there is any objection to this bill, D.C. residents will repair to the courts, who are the only authorities who can tell us what is constitutional and what is not constitutional. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Once again, a pro-life organization can hire or fire anyone it wants to. If that person opposes the mission of the pro-life organization, the pro-life organization does not have to hire that person and may fire that person. Another matter that has to be corrected is that the D.C. discrimination law provides that nothing in the act--the act under discussion here--prohibits religious and political organizations from limiting employment or admission to or giving preference to persons of the same religion or political persuasion as calculated by that organization to promote the religious or political principles for which it is established or maintained. That is the text. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), my friend.

Ms. NORTON. May I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on my side.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham), a member of our committee.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and say that I do want to thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Chaffetz, for the way he has run the committee and especially with respect to this controversial legislation. He has allowed members to speak. It has been a very civil repartee on both sides. I would like to offer that I have already read the text of D.C. law that exempts both religious and political organizations from limiting employment in the way that other employers must, that they may hire based on their religious views and their political views. Pro-life organizations are protected; churches are protected. The continuous citation of the former Mayor and the former attorney general would make you think that they were still in office. The council did, in fact, look once again at their objections, finding that their objections had already been taken care of in prior D.C. law. The council then unanimously passed the bill again. It is painful to hear the insurance matter cited against the District of Columbia because the only reason it isn't final law is because the District of Columbia has to transmit to this body every law, and it has to lay over for at least 30 days before it becomes final. If we had our way, if we had the same rights that every other Member has whose district is in the United States of America, it would already be law. It shouldn't be cited against us. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence), a member of the committee.

Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), my good friend.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), a member of the committee.

Ms. NORTON. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, as the nation's capital brings thousands of Americans to Washington, D.C. this tourist season despite recent security incidents, I rise to reintroduce the United States Commission on an Open Society with Security Act of 2015. The bill is as timely now as when I first began working on it. I saw the first signs of the closing of parts of our open society after the Oklahoma City bombing, whose 20th anniversary we commemorated this year. I saw it again after 9/11. This bill grows even more urgent as the country is ensnared in wars that threaten our security, causing an increasing variety of security measures to proliferate throughout the country without due diligence and deep thinking about the effects on common freedoms and ordinary public access, and often without guidance from the government or bona fide security experts. Take the example of some ordinary government buildings. Security in some federal buildings bars tourists here for Cherry Blossom season from even getting in to use the restroom or enjoy the cafeterias. The security for some federal buildings has for too long been unduly influenced by non-security experts, who happen to work for an agency but do not have the expertise to take into account actual threats. Another example is the District of Columbia's only public heliport, which the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) shut down following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, without explanation or means to appeal the decision. Just days after the 9/11 attacks, however, helicopter service was restored in New York City, the major target of the attacks. Yet, even 12 years after the attacks, TSA and FAA and particularly the Secret Service still will not permit commercial helicopters to fly to D.C., unlike all other cities in the United States. The bill I reintroduce today would begin a systematic investigation that fully takes into account the importance of maintaining our democratic traditions while responding adequately to the real and substantial threat that terrorism poses. To accomplish its difficult mission, the bill authorizes a 21-member commission, with the president designating nine members and the House and Senate each designating six members, to investigate the balance that should be required between openness and security. The commission would be composed not only of military and security experts, but, for the first time at the same table, also experts from such fields as business, architecture, technology, law, city planning, art, engineering, philosophy, history, sociology, and psychology. To date, questions of security most often have been left almost exclusively to security and military experts. They are indispensable participants, but these experts should not alone resolve all the new and unprecedented issues raised by terrorism in an open society. In order to strike the security/access balance required by our democratic traditions, a diverse group of experts needs to be at the same table. For years, parts of our open society have gradually been closed down because of terrorism and the fear of terrorism, on an often ad hoc basis. Some federal buildings such as the U.S. Capitol have been able to deal with security issues, and continue their openness to the public. Others, like the new Department of Transportation headquarters, remain mostly inaccessible to the public. These examples, drawn from the nation's capital, are replicated in public buildings throughout the United States. After 9/11, Americans expected additional and increased security adequate to protect citizens against the frightening threat of terrorism. However, in our country, people also expect their government to be committed and smart enough to undertake this awesome new responsibility without depriving them of their personal liberty. These times will long be remembered for the rise of terrorism in the world and in this country and for the unprecedented challenges it has brought. Nevertheless, we must provide ever-higher levels of security for our residents and public spaces while maintaining a free and open democratic society. What we have experienced since Oklahoma City and 9/ 11 is no ordinary threat that we expect to be over in a matter of years. The end point could be generations from now. The indeterminate nature of the threat adds to the necessity of putting aside ad hoc approaches to security developed in isolation from the goal of maintaining an open society. When we have faced unprecedented and perplexing issues in the past, we have had the good sense to investigate them deeply before moving to resolve them. Examples include the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission), the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (also known as the Silberman-Robb Commission), and the Kerner Commission, which investigated the riots that swept American cities in the 1960s and 1970s. In the aftermath of the 2013 Navy Yard shooting, I wrote to the President of the United States requesting the establishment of an independent panel to investigate issues raised by that tragedy and to evaluate how to secure federal employees who work in facilities like the Navy Yard that are a part of a residential or business community. However, this bill seeks a commission that would act not in the wake of a tragedy but before a crisis and before erosion of basic freedoms takes hold and becomes entrenched. Because global terrorism is likely to be long lasting, we cannot afford to allow the proliferation of security measures that neither require nor are subject to civilian oversight or an analysis of alternatives and repercussions on freedom and commerce. With no vehicles for leadership on issues of security and openness, we have been left to muddle through, using blunt 19th-century approaches, such as crude blockades, unsightly barriers around beautiful monuments, and other signals that our society is closing down, all without appropriate exploration of possible alternatives. The threat of terrorism to an open society is too serious to be left to ad hoc problem-solving. Such approaches are often as inadequate as they are menacing. We can do better, but only if we recognize and come to grips with the complexities associated with maintaining a society of free and open access in a world characterized by unprecedented terrorism. The place to begin is with a high-level commission of experts from a broad array of disciplines to help chart the new course that will be required to protect our people and our precious democratic institutions and traditions.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the 24th annual DC Black Pride celebration Washington, D.C. on May 22-25, 2015. DC Black Pride 2015 is a multi-day festival featuring a reception, films, a poetry slam, a church service, educational workshops, community town hall meetings, a basketball tournament, awards ceremony, and a health and wellness expo, among other events. We in the District of Columbia are pleased and proud that the DC Black Pride celebration is widely considered to be one of the world's preeminent Black Pride celebrations, drawing more than 30,000 people to the nation's capital from across the United States as well as from Canada, the Caribbean, South Africa, Great Britain, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. As the very first Black Pride festival, DC Black Pride fostered the beginning of the Center for Black Equity (formerly known as the International Federation of Black Prides, Inc. (IFBP)) and the ``Black Pride Movement,'' which now consists of 40 Black Prides on four continents. The Center For Black Equity, the celebration's organizing body, chose ``DC Black Pride 2015: 25! Inspiring a Movement, The Mission Continues'' as the theme for this year's celebration. This theme reflects the 25 years of connectedness of the Black Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community and its commitment to fulfilling the mission of DC Black Pride, which is to increase awareness of and pride in the diversity of the African American LGBT community. Moreover, the theme expresses the resolve of the African-American LGBT community and its allies to come together to: fight for LGBT equality; celebrate our heritage and culture as members of both the Black and LGBT communities; and promote health and wellness for the community. DC Black Pride is a project of the Center For Black Equity and is coordinated by Earl D. Fowlkes, Jr. and Kenya Anthony Hutton with assistance from a volunteer Advisory Board, which coordinates this annual event and consists of: Andrea Woody-Macko; Genise Chambers- Woods; Re'ginald Shaw-Richardson; Joseph F. Young; Cedric Harmon; Jeffrey Richardson; Angela Peoples; Thomas King; C. Hawkins; and Sonya Hemphill as well as scores of volunteers. I ask the House of Representatives to join me in welcoming all attending the 25th annual DC Black Pride celebration in Washington, D.C., and I take this opportunity to remind the celebrants that the American citizens who reside in Washington, D.C. are taxed without full voting representation in Congress.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Georgetown University during the bicentennial year of its federal charter. A 200 university year charter in the nation's capital is a special occasion to be celebrated not only for Georgetown alumni but also for the nation's capital, which has enjoyed countless educational benefits from having one of the nation's most distinguished universities in our city. Founded more than two centuries ago by Bishop John Carroll, Georgetown became only the second school in the nation's history to acquire a federal charter from Congress. Today, the university remains true to its founder's Roman Catholic and Jesuit values. Georgetown graduates have gone on to not only change the nation but the world. The university continues to produce leaders at home and abroad. The list of its distinguished alumni is replete with public servants and foreign dignitaries, including former President William ``Bill'' Clinton. For the past two centuries, Members of Congress who have either been alumni or staff of the University are too numerous and noteworthy to name. I am proud to continue as a tenured member of the Georgetown Law School faculty, teaching one seminar each year, after having served as a permanent professor at the law school before my election to Congress. Currently, there are 15 Members of Congress, most of them alumni, who are affiliated with the university. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in applauding 200 years of the Georgetown University federal charter, and the university's outstanding contributions to the nation's capital and the nation itself The university's esteem and success continue to grow and we anticipate its continued success for years to come.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to prohibit federal funds from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) from being disbursed to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) unless DOT certifies that MWAA is complying with audit standards. There have been some improvements at MWAA, but significant failures in MWAA's contracting, auditing, and hiring policies and practices pointed to a need for systemic reform in MWAA's acquisition, auditing, and hiring processes. Despite being created by Congress, leasing federally owned land, and benefiting from significant federal taxpayer funds, MWAA is not subject to federal procurement, auditing or nepotism laws. However, MWAA has been taking steps to address these shortcomings. MWAA is an independent public body created by Congress under the Metropolitan Washington Airports Act of 1986 (Airports Act). MWAA, with 1,400 employees, leases Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and Washington Dulles International Airport from the federal government. In addition to managing the airports, MWAA is responsible for the Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project, which has an estimated cost of $5.8 billion, including $977 million in federal funds. In 2012, DOT appointed a Federal Accountability Officer, who reports directly to the Secretary, to ensure MWAA follows the DOT Inspector General's (IG) recommendations. A 2012 DOT IG report, ``MWAA's Weak Policies and Procedures Have Led to Questionable Procurement Practices, Mismanagement, and a Lack of Overall Accountability'' (Report Number: AV-2013-006) (IG Report), found that ``MWAA's contracting policies and practices are insufficient to ensure compliance with the Airports Act and the lease agreement between DOT and MWAA.'' For example, the Airports Act and lease agreement require MWAA to award contracts over $200,000 competitively to the maximum extent practicable. However, the IG Report found that MWAA had recently awarded two-thirds of its contracts exceeding $200,000 with limited competition. The IG Report also noted that MWAA awarded many contracts with no formal solicitation. After the IG Report, MWAA immediately took action and has closed out 10 of 12 recommendations and MWAA has adopted as much of the Federal Acquisition Regulations as are applicable to MWAA. Still, there are significant issues sighted in a recent draft DOT IG report on the Office of Audits that virtually mandates greater monitoring. A January 15, 2013, Washington Post article reported that at least 10 percent of MWAA employees have family members working there, including spouses and children. The IG report also noted that MWAA lacked ``sufficient controls to detect and prevent nepotism.'' It is clear that changes were imperative and overdue. The lack of transparency and competition on MWAA's contracts and hiring were inconsistent with continued ownership of the airports by the federal government, MWAA's creation by Congress, and the significant federal taxpayer dollars MWAA receives. The IG Report's conclusion that procurement procedures and hiring policies in place were inadequate required a response that definitively fixed these issues. MWAA has updated its policies, and nepotism appears to no longer be a problem. A current draft DOT IG report on the Office of Audits raises a number of questions regarding MWAA's internal auditing procedures. It finds that there have been no outside reviews of the Office of Audits and that the office has not adopted standards and lacked sufficient oversight. MWAA has responded to this draft report by taking initial steps to restructure the office. MWAA has updated its regulations so that the head of the Office of Audits will now report directly to the Board of Directors as well as the President & CEO. MWAA has also adopted the Institute of Internal Auditors standards, and it is undergoing a national search for a new internal auditor and external auditor. The steps MWAA has taken to address the findings of the DOT IG are commendable. However, considering the outstanding issues, continuous oversight is essential. To further assist MWAA, I am offering this bill so that DOT will continue to have direct oversight over MWAA and access to audit materials. I urge support of this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, on Earth Day, I am introducing the Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act of 2015, a version of which I have introduced since 1994, after working with the District of Columbia residents who were responsible for the Nuclear Disarmament and Economic Conversion ballot initiative passed by D.C. voters in 1993. This version of the bill now requires the United States to immediately begin negotiating an international agreement to disable and dismantle its nuclear weapons, to provide for strict control of fissile material and radioactive waste, and to use nuclear- free energy. The bill continues to provide that the funds used for nuclear weapons programs be redirected to human and infrastructure needs, such as housing, health care, Social Security, restoring the environment, and creating carbon-free, nuclear-free energy. This conversion to a peace economy would occur when the President certifies to Congress that all countries possessing nuclear weapons have begun elimination under international treaty or other legal agreement. The bill is particularly timely as countries of the world meet at the United Nations to review the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the possibility of a Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty. Our country still has a long list of urgent domestic needs that have been put on the back burner. As the only nation that has used nuclear weapons in war, and that still possesses the largest nuclear weapons arsenal, I urge support for my bill to help the United States reestablish our moral leadership in the world by redirecting funds that would otherwise go to nuclear weapons for urgent domestic needs.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the 44th anniversary of the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, DC (GLAA), a much- valued human rights organization that has long been a local leader in the struggle for equal rights for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Since its founding, in April 1971, GLAA has been a respected and tireless advocate for full and equal rights for the District of Columbia, and has been at the forefront of efforts to strengthen enforcement of the landmark D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977. One of GLAA's most significant achievements, on which it worked with coalition partners, D.C. elected officials, and District residents, was enactment of the District of Columbia Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act, which permits same-sex couples to marry in the District. GLAA has also stoutly defended the District's comprehensive human rights law; has been an outspoken advocate for LGBT youth and seniors; has stood up for the rights of LGBT consumers; has upheld the rights of transgender people, including equal treatment by police and access to culturally competent healthcare; and has built and nurtured coalitions with other constituencies to advance these causes and defend the District's autonomy. At GLAA's 44th anniversary reception on April 23, 2015, the recipients of its 2015 Distinguished Service Awards will be recognized, including: Alexandra Andrea Beninda serves as a member of the D.C. Commission on Human Rights. She is a dedicated transgender advocate and community volunteer. She has also served as a board member for Equality Virginia, Treasurer of the Virginia Partisans Gay and Lesbian Democratic Club, Treasurer of the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club, and a board member for the DC Center for the LGBT Community. She has represented the Stein Club on the D.C. Democratic State Committee. She is an active member and Assistant Treasurer at All Souls Unitarian Church. Chuck Hicks is a longtime specialist in Black history and strong supporter of HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. He is founder and chair of the DC Black History Celebration Committee, and collaborated with the DC Commission on the Arts and Humanities in last year's multimedia production on Bayard Rustin and James Baldwin, and this year's production on Ruby Dee and Ossie Davis. He is founder and chair of Bread for the Soul. He has also served on the board of the Whitman- Walker Clinic. He led creation of a local host committee for the dedication of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial, and served on the D.C. Mayor's Committee on the 50th Anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington. He currently serves on the Commission on Aging, D.C. Commission on African-American Men and Boys, Commission on African- American Affairs, and the MLK Holiday Commission. Anne Phelps is a former D.C. Council Committee Director for the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety, serving under then- chairman Tommy Wells. Before that, she was Committee Director for the Committee on Libraries, Parks, Recreation, and Planning, and General Counsel for the Committee on Transportation and Public Works. During her tenure on the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee, the following bills supported by GLAA were passed: the Marriage Officiant Amendment Act of 2013; JaParker Deoni Jones Birth Certificate Equality Amendment Act of 2013; Marriage License Issuance Amendment Act of 2013; Civil Marriage Dissolution Equality Clarification Amendment Act of 2014; Repeal of Prostitution Free Zones Amendment Act of 2014; and Human Rights Amendment Act of 2014. During her previous committee post, she shepherded the Youth Bullying Prevention Act of 2012. She continues to work on LGBT issues as Legislative Director for Ward 6 Councilmember Charles Allen. I ask the House to join me in honoring the recipients of GLAA's 2015 Distinguished Service Award and celebrating GLAA's 44 years of contributions to the LGBT community in the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring Vicki Saporta for 20 years of outstanding leadership and service as President and CEO of the National Abortion Federation (NAF). As the first woman organizing director for an international union and now as a visionary leader in the reproductive health, rights, and justice movement, Vicki Saporta has spent her career fighting for women's equality and to improve women's lives. Since taking the helm of NAF in 1995, President Saporta has worked tirelessly to ensure women's access to safe, legal abortion care. Recognizing the need to address violence against abortion providers, Saporta successfully advocated for the establishment of the Department of Justice's National Task Force on Violence Against Health Care Providers. She has actively worked with Attorney Generals Janet Reno and Eric Holder; the Department of Justice; Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and U.S. Marshals to improve law enforcement response to clinic violence. As a result, major incidences of violence against abortion providers have decreased significantly in recent years. Saporta has brought abortion providers and their patients into the forefront of the public debate about abortion. In 1996, she brought five women and their families to the Oval Office to meet with President Clinton, who publicly announced that he vetoed a federal abortion ban because he was so moved by their stories. More recently, she worked closely with Congress to build support for lifting a decades-long ban on federal funding for abortion care for servicemembers and their dependents in cases of rape and incest--one of the only pro-choice legislative victories in the last 40 years. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring President and CEO Vicki Saporta for her outstanding service to reproductive health. Her legacy continues to offer a powerful example for serving our communities.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Dave McConnell, who this year is observing his 50th year in the District of Columbia at WTOP Radio, where he has provided outstanding service to radio listeners in Washington, D.C. and the national capital region. For five decades, Dave McConnell has been the deeply crisp golden voice the national capital region has tuned in to for news. Dave has brilliantly made himself the preeminent reporter the region can trust to get the news straight. Dave's grasp of the complicated news of the day is so profound that he can summarize it in a few short edifying sentences. So significant has been Dave's talented voice, his peerless dedication to unbiased reporting, and his vast knowledge of Congress and of Washington that WTOP owes part of its continued success to Dave McConnell. A graduate of the University of Maryland, Dave McConnell was drafted to work for Armed Forces Radio before returning to the Washington area, where he first worked at WTTG Channel Five and WMAL before starting at WTOP in 1965, where he has remained for 50 years. Dave continues to thrive in his career. His popular ``Today on the Hill'' reports are broadcast each weekday, each hour in the morning and afternoon, with the occasional special reports. Dave has provided exemplary coverage of 12 presidential elections, five inaugurations, and countless political changes. He has been the recipient of a host of honors. Among the most notable are his recent Career Achievement of the Radio and Television Correspondents Association award in 2013 along with his 2001 AIR Lifetime Achievement Award and the Society of Professional Journalists Hall of Fame award in 1999. Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress, like residents of the District of Columbia, where WTOP is located, and the entire national capital region, have benefited from Dave's straight forward and always unbiased reporting. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Dave McConnell for 50 years of extraordinary reporting with WTOP Radio.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I began a series of remarks leading up to tomorrow, Emancipation Day, in the District of Columbia, when Lincoln and the Congress freed the slaves in the District 9 months ahead of the Emancipation Proclamation. There are no slaves living in the District today, nor is there a single free and equal citizen living in your Nation's Capital. Freedom from slavery did not give residents freedom as equal citizens. During yesterday's remarks in this series, I spoke about D.C. residents going to war, to every war since the Nation was created, without ever having a vote. Today's remarks fit today, April 15, the day when D.C. residents will be the only Americans who pay Federal taxes without a vote for or against those taxes or anything else. For us, it is not tax day; it is taxation without representation day. It is no overstatement to say that this House is obsessed with taxes, that is to say, tax cuts. There are tax cut bills on the floor this very week. Our residents are not demanding tax cuts--take the money-- but they are demanding the rights that go with the taxes they pay. We want an end to no vote on this floor; an end to local matters coming to Congress without a vote on this floor; an end to D.C.'s local budget, of all matters, coming to Congress, even though there is not one dime of Federal money in it, only local money. We want an end to every Member getting a vote on District matters that come to this floor except the Member who represents the District of Columbia. We want an end to this mountainload of injustice, and that comes with statehood. The best way to see the injustice of paying taxes without representation is to compare D.C. residents and what taxes they pay with what other Americans pay. Look at who pays the highest taxes in the United States of America, D.C. residents--this is per capita, my friends--compared to who pays the lowest, Mississippi. What is that, a third of what D.C. residents pay? The two largest States in the Union, New York and California--New York taxpayers pay a little more than $8,700 per capita, California a little more than $8,000 per capita--both compared to our $12,000 per capita. Southern States average between the $4,000 and $5,000 per capita range. The Midwest states average in the $6,000 range. Ohio is $6,130. Iowa is $6,019. Even States with many wealthy taxpayers, like Virginia and Florida, are within the $7,000 tax range, but D.C.--650,000 residents--pays $12,000 per resident. Find your State on my Web site. You will not find one state paying what District of Columbia residents pay. Today is April 15, and nobody enjoys paying taxes, but we believe that the constituents of my colleagues will join the moral outrage of my constituents when they learn that D.C. residents are not only paying more federal taxes per capita than any other Americans, but that added up, this amounts to more dollars than 24 of our States are paying, all with representation. D.C. residents pay more than their full freight to support the United States Government. The time is overdue to permit D.C. citizens to join the Union of States as the State of New Columbia, the 51st State of the Union.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, in advance of D.C. Emancipation Day, and I know that it is not a national holiday, but it is, yes, a holiday in the District of Columbia. It commemorates the day when the slaves in the District of Columbia were liberated by the Congress and Abraham Lincoln 9 months before the national Emancipation Proclamation. Astonishingly, 150 years later, full freedom and equal citizenship have not yet come to the residents of the District of Columbia. You don't have to be the Holmes family in the District of Columbia, who have lived three generations here paying taxes without representation. Indeed, my great grandfather, Richard Holmes, was a runaway slave from Virginia. When Lincoln and Congress freed the slaves 150 years ago, Richard Holmes was not freed, because he was a runaway slave rather than a slave whose master lived in the District of Columbia. So he had to wait the 9 months for the Emancipation Proclamation, but he was working on the streets of Washington like a free man as they were building Washington. He became free, but his great granddaughter--grateful for all that my family has done--cannot say that we are free today. The greater shock will not come from those of us who are longtime residents. It will come from those who moved to D.C. yesterday, from those who are not three generations here but who are one day here, when they find that their rights are gone, that the rights they had in every State of the Union have vanished except for a few. They can vote for President, but they can't vote for whoever represents them on this House floor. They have Congress interfering with their local business. This will astonish the average American, and most Americans have no idea this is the case for the 650,000 residents who live in their Nation's Capital. People have taken for granted that the vote that is emblematic of statehood would follow them--I don't know--from Utah and California, from Alaska and Maine to the District of Columbia when they moved here. They had no idea that their local budget, for example, which is a budget raised exclusively in the District of Columbia, would have the big foot of the Federal Government kicking it around-- indeed, that it would even be in the Congress. Emancipation Day in the District of Columbia is not a mere commemoration. It is not like George Washington's birthday. It is alive with a fervor against this rank injustice that I have begun to speak about this evening. I am going to speak about the injustice, but I am also going to talk about progress because we have been encouraged--we who live in the District of Columbia--and the many allies we have to fight as we begin to make some substantial headway. Most Americans--indeed, all other Americans--obtain their full rights by going through a citizenship ceremony or by simply being born here. All you have to do to have your full citizenship rights, when all is said and done, is to pay taxes. You don't even have to have participated in all of the Nation's wars or any of the Nation's wars the way the residents of the District of Columbia have done ever since the first war, the war that created the United States of America. You don't have to have paid all the taxes ever since you have been in the Union of states the way the District of Columbia residents have. The reason you don't is that the statehood simply comes with where you live, and that is what has not happened to us. Where do we live? We are proud to live in the Nation's Capital. There, you would expect rights to flourish first and foremost. When I spoke of not having the vote, do understand I have the vote in committee, and I am very grateful for that vote because it does allow me to carry home some important benefits to the District of Columbia, but what I don't have is the right to come to this floor and have the same vote that each of my colleagues has on business that affects the District of Columbia and the Nation. Even matters that affect the District of Columbia, our own budget comes to Congress; and every other Member, who had nothing to do with raising the funds, gets to vote on that budget, but not the Member elected by the people of the District of Columbia. How painful it is that I have been able to speak on a number of wars that our country has entered, most recently Afghanistan and Iraq, have gone to Arlington to bury those killed, residents killed in those wars who went to war, secured the vote for residents of Afghanistan and Iraq but came home to find no vote or, in the case of those who died, did not come home at all. And yet I am in a Republican House where ``federalism'' is the byword. Indeed, I understand why, because nothing was more important to the Founders than their own local laws and keeping the Federal Government, which was then kept deliberately weak, out of their affairs. What mattered to them was what was most local. So the very notion of interfering with the local business of a jurisdiction of any kind was unthinkable for our Framers. It is the very meaning of statehood, this localism, this thing that says that there is territory and there are laws, there are habits for you only. They will differ vastly across the country, but that is your prerogative; that is the prerogative of statehood. That is why the residents of the District of Columbia seek to become the 51st State, and know it will happen. Perhaps later than sooner, but it must happen because of the principles I have begun to describe. It must happen because we have been called out and continue to be called out internationally, because we have signed treaties where we are now in violation. We are in violation of a treaty we signed in 1977, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Human Rights Committee, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, has called us out once again as it did in 2006, and they recited the reason for it. The Human Rights Committee, looking at what has been done or, as it turns out, not been done said, and I am quoting them, the United Nations delegation to the U.N. ``remains concerned that residents of the District of Columbia do not enjoy full representation in Congress, a restriction that does not seem to be compatible with article 25 of the covenant.'' Then they cited article 2, and I won't quote from it entirely, but it says that the treaty we signed requires that we ``adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present covenant.'' What are those rights? In this covenant, in this treaty that we the United States has signed, says all persons are ``equal under the law and are entitled, without discrimination, through the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground,'' and then they name the grounds. Here are the grounds: ``such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth--and here is the one that applies to the District of Columbia and its residents--``or other status.'' What is our other status? That we reside in our own Nation's Capital--and for that reason, and that reason alone, are denied equal rights with other citizens of the United States of America. Worse than being denied your rights is getting a right and then having it taken from you. Even that has happened to the residents of the District of Columbia. Shortly after I was elected to Congress, I wrote a memo indicating that since, as a Delegate, by rules of the House, I could vote in the Committee of the Whole, it followed that I should be able to vote in the Committee of the Whole when it meets on this floor. The Democrats were in control, but even they said: We must send this to outside counsel. Nobody from the District of Columbia has ever voted on this floor. They sent it to outside counsel. They said that the District of Columbia votes by rule in committee, so by rule, yes, if the majority pass a rule, the District can vote on the floor of the House of Representatives. That rule was passed. Every time that the Democrats are in power, I get to vote on the House floor--by no means on all business, but certainly on business in the Committee of the Whole, and some of that really affects and is important to the District of Columbia. It is not the whole and complete vote. It is not what we are entitled to. Why would anyone want to take it from us when we pay taxes without representation? But sure enough, when my good friends on the other side of the aisle write their rules, they write the District right out of the rules and take from us a vote that we have actually exercised on the House floor with the concurrence of the Federal courts of the United States. Right after we were granted that right and after I began to exercise it, my Republican colleagues actually sued the Congress for giving the District the vote in the Committee of the Whole. The District Court said: It is your discretion. What Congress has done is legal; the matter is legal and constitutional. And the Congress--the Republicans, not the Congress, took their suit against the Congress, the Democratic Congress to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, the Federal Court of Appeals said: Yes, what Congress has done is legal, in its discretion and constitutional. And I proceeded to vote. I think it is probably unheard of except in coups or dictatorships to snatch a vote or a right that someone once held, but that is what happened to the residents of the District of Columbia. No wonder there is rage in the city about such treatment. Now, you might say: Well, there surely must be some reason why the residents of the District of Columbia don't have the vote. No one has found any such a reason yet. They have only found reasons why we should have the vote. Some will say: Oh, you are much too small to have the vote. After all, you are only a city. Well, a city is whatever you call it, so is a State. But if the size determines that you have the vote, then Vermont and Wyoming should not have the vote because we have more population than either of those two States. Vermont and Wyoming are not alone. Those are the states where we have notably more residents than they have. We have more than 650,000 residents. But there are more than half a dozen States that are in the same range of population as the District of Columbia and have a Representative--no more than one, just like the District of Columbia has one in this House--and two Senators. The District of Columbia has no Senators. Who would say that that is fair? And yet if you look down to the states with comparable population, the first tier that are almost exactly like the District of Columbia: North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, of course, and Wyoming. And then there is another tier that are above us but very close in population: Delaware and South Dakota. I want them to keep their vote, and I want them to keep their two Senators. All we are asking is that District of Columbia residents be treated equally. I have been speaking all week in preparation for Emancipation Day tomorrow, April 16. I began with two important, what I call debt-paid, paid-in-full obligations of citizenship. The first is participation in the armed services--although we know nobody is required to participate in the armed services today--and the second is payment of taxes. Pretty much today, April 15, if you have earned enough money, even a relatively small amount, you are going to have to pay some taxes. It is hard to say which of those is most important. They all, of course, surround citizenship. Both support our government: those who go to the service, those who pay their taxes. I won't say what is most important, but I started with military service for a reason: anyone who enters the service, especially today, does so voluntarily, knowing she is taking personal risk of her life. Service in the armed services is so important to our country that undocumented immigrants have been granted citizenship by serving in the Armed Forces, and that has now been formalized. Young people who grew up in the United States but came with their parents as undocumented children without any legal status have always joined the armed services. In recognition of that, our country has now said that, at least for those who have special language or medical skills, if they join the armed services, after 6 months they can apply for citizenship. Just consider the premium that we are placing on service in the Armed Forces, a premium that is more than deserved, and yet there is no cognizance taken of the fact that our residents who lived in the District of Columbia since its formation in 1801 have fought and died in the armed services; and even before that they fought in the Revolutionary War that led to the formal formation of the United States and the District of Columbia. So by any measure, District of Columbia residents have gone beyond the call of duty in serving their country and earned the right--earned, earned painfully, with their lives--the full right to be treated as full and equal citizens of a State. This chart shows how the right to be the 51st State has been tragically earned. In World War I, there were more casualties from D.C., this small territory than three States; in World War II, there were more casualties from the District of Columbia than from four States--and it only rises. In the Korean war, there were more casualties than from eight States of the union, almost all of which were larger in size and had more population. The Vietnam war, where we have the very most casualties-- more men and women were killed than from 10 States in the Union. There is a very special part of our service in the Armed Forces. The District of Columbia was not a majority African American city until almost 1960. Today, it really is not a majority African American city. I grew up in a city that was largely White. During that period, for most of its history, the District of Columbia was a segregated city, segregated by the Congress of the United States. I went to segregated schools, for example; yet look at how residents of the District of Columbia who had no vote of any kind at that time, had no home rule government. The city was run by three commissioners--no mayor, no city council, nobody to go to who was responsible to you--yet look what its residents did. The first African American Army general was born and raised in the District of Columbia. The first African American Air Force general was also born in the District of Columbia. The first African American Naval Academy graduate was born right here in the District of Columbia. The first African American Air Force Academy graduate was born in this city. The roster continues into recent years, where we had the first Deputy Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard and the first African American female aviator in the D.C. National Guard. Don't tell me District residents haven't paid their dues and then some; yet I have sometimes had some difficulty getting our armed services personnel duly recognized. Perhaps the most poignant was a mother who wrote me--and I thank this Congress for helping me to correct this injustice. It may seem small to you, but it didn't seem small to my constituents. They are the parents of Jonathan Matthew Rucker, a D.C. native high school graduate who then proudly joined the Navy, instead of going to college. He graduated from Naval Station Great Lakes. His parents went to see him graduate. Tomi Rucker, his mother, is an investigator with the D.C. Fire and EMS Department. His father, Michael Linwood Boyd, is a sergeant in the Special Operations Division of the D.C. police department. They enjoyed attending their son's graduation from naval boot camp. The Navy called out the names. As the name of each young person was called, the Navy raised the state flag. The name of Jonathan Matthew Rucker was called, and no flag was raised. Why? What in the world? What could they have been thinking, that we weren't a State, so the flag shouldn't be raised? Well, this Congress, controlled by my good Republican friends, was also amazed. I very much appreciate that they passed my bill that was attached to the Defense authorization bill that the Armed Forces now must display the D.C. flag--and we learned only with the visibility of this incident that there were D.C. veterans who had come home from wars and, every flag was raised, except the D.C. flag. I must tell you, I think it was because D.C. is not a State, for God's sake. At some point, you just have to draw the line. Just make us a State, and maybe those kinds of things won't happen. Take our World War I memorial. Every State had a World War I memorial--paid for by people in that State--so was ours, 100 percent. Indeed, they collected money even from schoolchildren. There has actually been an attempt to take our D.C. War Memorial-- because it happens to be located on the Mall--and convert it into a national World War I memorial because there is no World War I memorial on the Mall. Well, sorry about that, but we paid--not only in treasure, but in the lives of almost 500 D.C. residents. I thank my Republican colleagues for working with me to maintain the D.C. War Memorial. The D.C. World War I memorial had become, really, a war memorial for all D.C. veterans. What I did was to work closely with my colleagues so that we would get a real World War I memorial that could be respected. That means there is going to be a wholesale redevelopment of the Pershing Park, which many always considered a World War I memorial. It is not located on the Mall, but it is located right in a prime location on Pennsylvania Avenue, near the White House, and we were able to come to a compromise, the kind of compromise that makes the world go round and makes this House look good. Today, of course, was tax day, and my Republican colleagues came forward with any number of bills. Some were worthy bills, bipartisan bills. Some were nonsense. Some were just straight out demagoguery. My colleagues are very concerned with tax cuts, even bills this week. Many will be surprised about the District of Columbia and taxes. This is one of the great unknown factoids of the United States. Residents of the District of Columbia, per capita, per resident, pay the highest taxes in the United States, Federal taxes, more than any Americans. If you are in Mississippi, you pay the lowest per capita, at just about $4,000, compared to our $12,000. If you go to my Web site, you will find out where your State stands. I will go down the top 10: the District of Columbia, Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts--this is in rank order, by the way--Maryland, New York, Nevada, Wyoming, New Hampshire, and California. The largest States--let's take California and New York--they each pay in the $8,000 range. D.C. is $12,000 per capita. This is all per resident. You say: well, look at the small States; they must be like you. No, they are not. Small States, like Rhode Island--we are $12,000, and they are at $7,000. We are at $12,000 per resident, and in Vermont, they are $6,000. North Dakota is at $6,000. Montana is at $5,000. Those are the States with small populations, so population can't be the cause. The cause is that the District has middle-income people, rich people, and, yes, because it is a big city, poor people, and when you add it all up, Uncle Sam gets more than his due without D.C. getting statehood and the rights that come with it. Only statehood can end this bucketload of injustice. Only statehood can end no vote for the Member from the District on this floor, no matter what the bill, even if the bill is about the District of Columbia. Only statehood can end the outrage of bringing the District's local budget for Members to vote on who have nothing to do with it and have contributed not one penny to it. Only statehood can keep this Congress from interfering with the local laws of our local jurisdiction, using their own preferences to overturn the democratic will of the legislature of the District of Columbia. But, it is not all terrible. We have made progress. This is a country that makes progress slowly, so we are not about to give up. We are trying to get the elements of statehood even as we try to get what we are entitled to. Budget autonomy--so that our budget won't have to come here--was not only in the President's budget, but my bill for budget autonomy was in the Senate appropriations bill last Congress. They put it in their budget. That, I am afraid, did not pass because we cannot get yet the kind of consensus we need from the House. The residents of the District of Columbia want to have sole dominion over their own money. That is $7 billion that we raise ourselves in the District of Columbia, so residents put it to referendum. The city was sued after that referendum which passed by almost 85 percent of the vote. Now, that is in court to see where it goes. But residents are not going to give up. If they can't get statehood, they are trying to get any part of it that they can. Other elements of statehood have also been introduced in the House and the Senate so that our local laws don't have to come here, for example. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time I have had on the floor for Emancipation Day. I want to leave you looking forward, not backward. We are overjoyed by making some progress. We know that, ultimately, the denial of rights will be seen as un- American, especially when that denial concerns the residents of our own Nation's Capital. 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. I thank my good friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let's put in context what is happening on this floor today. This is tax day, and what the majority does each tax day is pull out tax bills. Some of them are good bills; some of them have the appearance of everything but the kitchen sink. There are some Members of their party who are running for President on abolishing the IRS. Well, you can't abolish it; so what they are doing is targeting working people in the Federal Government to point out that Republicans are not asleep on tax day. What the Republican majority is doing today is a gratuitous, useless, slap in the face of Federal employees who apparently do understand that they have an affirmative duty, even beyond others, to pay their taxes because they do so at a rate that is almost twice that of the general public which is more than twice that of other Americans. The best that can be said about this bill is that it is entirely superfluous. It does what already can be done. What can be done is this: existing statutory authority gives the Federal Government, the IRS, the ability to collect Federal, State, and local taxes from all Federal employees. If federal agencies find that there is a delinquent taxpayer, they can already, under Federal law, go from counseling to removal for all Federal employees. That is in the law already, my friends. In their wisdom, Congresses in the past have wanted to keep Federal employees paying their taxes until they paid them off, so Congress didn't cut off its nose to spite its face by taking away their jobs as this bill allows. They tried something that has worked, the Federal Employee/Retiree Delinquency Initiative, which matches up Federal employees in all the agencies, not just the IRS, with delinquencies so they have their very low delinquency rate today. The IRS also can levy past the usual limit of 15 percent until the government gets all its money. The IRS have the discretion to do this for all Federal employees, not only IRS employees.

Ms. NORTON. Chairman Issa called this bill entirely cosmetic-- conceded that this bill was cosmetic when it was introduced before. If you want to do something about taxes for the American people, stop cutting the IRS so that the IRS can start collecting taxes and cutting the deficit.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, during the next 3 days, I will be coming to the floor, leading up to Thursday, April 16--D.C. Emancipation Day. That is the day that Abraham Lincoln emancipated the slaves in the District of Columbia before slaves nationwide were emancipated. Now, no resident of the District of Columbia is a slave today as in 1863, but at the same time, the residents of the District of Columbia are not as free as the other residents of our country--our fellow Americans. In the District of Columbia, we commemorate D.C. Emancipation Day, not only to honor our forebears but to demand equal treatment from our country for the citizens who live in the Nation's Capital. Mr. Speaker, the citizens who live right here in the belly of freedom do not have the same rights as other Americans although they pay the same taxes and more taxes--I will argue tomorrow and show you the figures--than any other Americans. They endure undemocratic interference even with their local budget--a budget for which the Federal Government, for which the Congress, contributes not one penny-- and yet that local budget comes before this body without the Member who represents the local citizens--the Member whose local budget is at issue cannot vote. As astounding as those elements of statehood are, perhaps none is more dishonorable than the continued sacrifices of Americans who live in the Nation's Capital without having the same representation as other Americans. We are known, perhaps, in the Nation's Capital by ``no taxation without representation.'' If there is anything by which we could be better known, it is by those who have fought and died since the war that created the United States of America, itself. Who would believe what those figures show? In World War I, more casualties than from three States. In World War II--now, this is one city of which we are speaking--more casualties than from four States. By the time we get to the Korean war, more casualties than from eight States of the Union. All of that is disproportionate, Mr. Speaker. Finally, when we get to the last great war of the 20th century, the Vietnam war, more casualties from the District of Columbia than from 10 States. Thousands have died--all without a vote--and yet D.C. citizens have secured the vote everywhere they have fought for their country. They secured the vote for the people of Iraq. They secured the vote for the people of Afghanistan. They secured the vote for citizens throughout Europe and the Mideast. But here, to this day in 2015--more than 150 years after Lincoln freed the first slaves in the District of Columbia--the residents of the District of Columbia are still not free. They will not be free until they become citizens of the 51st State of the United States and until their war dead are honored as the war dead of other States are honored--by going to war on the vote of the people, including of their own Representative, coming back, and being able to vote themselves. So, Mr. Speaker, on this first day of D.C. Emancipation Week, I ask that the D.C. war dead be honored and that those from the District of Columbia who serve our Nation today be honored with the vote and with statehood.