Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today is Equal Pay Day, which marks the number of additional days a woman must work to earn what a man earned by the end of last year. The 1963 Equal Pay Act (EPA), the first of the great civil rights statutes of the 1960s, has grown creaky with age and needs updating to reflect the new workforce, in which women work almost as much as men. Every Congress, Representative Rosa DeLauro and I, along with scores of other members of Congress, introduce the Paycheck Fairness Act, to amend the EPA to make its basic procedures equal to those of other anti-discrimination statutes. As an original cosponsor, I attended the signing of the 2009 Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which restored the original interpretation following a Supreme Court decision that limited lawsuits on pay disparity by tightening the time frame to file such cases. The best case for a stronger and updated EPA, with at least the Paycheck Fairness Act, occurred here in the Congress in 2003, when female custodians in the House and Senate won an EPA case after showing that female workers were paid a dollar less for doing the same or similar work as men. Had these women not been represented by their union, they would have had an almost impossible task in using the rules for bringing and sustaining an EPA class action suit. Based on my own experience as the first woman to chair the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I again introduce the Fair Pay Act (FPA) on behalf of the average female worker, who is often first steered to, and then locked into, jobs with wages that are deeply influenced by the gender of those who have traditionally held such jobs. Much of the wage inequality women experience today is because of employer-steering and because of deeply rooted wage stereotypes, which result in wages being paid according to gender and not according to the skills and efforts necessary to do the job. I introduce the FPA because pay disparity most women face today stems mainly from the segregation of women and men in different jobs and paying women in female-dominated jobs systematically less. Two-thirds of white women and three quarters of African-American women work in just three areas: sales/clerical, service and factories. We need more aggressive strategies to break through the societal barriers present throughout history the world over, as well as employer-steering based on gender, which is as old as paid employment itself. The FPA requires that if men and women are doing comparable work, they are to be paid comparable wages. If a woman, for example, is an emergency services operator, a female-dominated profession, she should not be paid less than a fire dispatcher, a male-dominated profession, simply because each of these jobs has been dominated by one sex. If a woman is a social worker, a traditionally female occupation, she should not earn less than a probation officer, a traditionally male job, simply because of the gender associated with each of these jobs. The FPA, like the EPA, will not tamper with the legal burden. Under the FPA, as under the EPA, the burden will be on the plaintiff to prove discrimination. The plaintiff must show that the reason for the disparate treatment is gender discrimination, not legitimate market factors. Remedies to achieve comparable pay for men and women are not radical or unprecedented. State governments, in red and blue states alike, have demonstrated with their own employees that they can eliminate the part of the pay gap that is due to discrimination. Twenty states have adjusted wages for female-dominated professions, raising pay for teachers, nurses, clerical workers, librarians, and other female- dominated-jobs that paid less than comparable male-dominated jobs. Minnesota, for example, implemented a pay equity plan when it found that traditionally female jobs paid 20 percent less than comparable traditionally male jobs. There may well be some portion of a gender wage gap that is traceable to market factors, but twenty states have shown that you can tackle the gender discrimination-based wage gap without interfering in the market system. States generally have closed the wage gap over a period of four to five years at a one-time cost of no more than three to four percent of payroll. In addition, many female workers routinely achieve pay equity through collective bargaining, and countless employers provide it on their own as they see women shifting out of vital female-dominated occupations as a result of the shortage of skilled workers, as well as because of the unfairness to women. Unequal pay has been built into the way women have been treated since Adam and Eve. To dislodge such deep-seated and pervasive treatment, we must go to the source, the traditionally female occupations, where pay is linked with gender and always has been.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank my good friend from Maryland for yielding. Mr. Chairman, about the only thing any of the Republican budgets have done in recent years is to cut the deficit, ignoring altogether the desperate needs and declining wages of the people. This year, the American people will give Congress no credit for a budget that does not grow jobs and good wages. The Republican budget cuts growth by 2.5 percent, and it devastates almost 3 million jobs. Instead of using a readymade need in order to grow good jobs with good wages--the surface transportation bill that must be authorized this year--the Republican budget would, for the first time in our history, cut almost all new highway and transit funding. States would be left able to fill potholes but unable to begin a single new project. Infrastructure needs must be met at some point anyway, so we do ourselves no favor by our serial failure to meet the needs that also have been shown to be the best way to fuel the economy with good jobs. There is no magical way to cut our way into good jobs and begin to repair income inequality. The old-fashioned, American way of building America's neglected infrastructure is the best way today, as it was when President Eisenhower initiated the surface transportation bill 70 years ago.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank both of my good friends. I certainly thank you, my good friend from California, Mr. Garamendi, for the consistency with which you have taken on these Special Orders. You don't need my support, but I thought I would come down and offer my support, not only because of how comprehensive have been your comments to remind the American people of how important our bill is, the surface transportation bill; but I would like to just take a few minutes to relate to what I have heard both of you say. Indeed, I have heard you mention jobs and the economy in one form or fashion, but I want to take this moment to indicate the link between jobs and the surface transportation bill. What makes me want to do this is the Gallup Poll. We have always known that the surface transportation bill and, indeed, that infrastructure has been an engine of the economy, and one reason is that it throws off jobs. It starts, of course, in construction, but then, more than any other sector, it stimulates jobs all the way up, jobs that support all the way up. That is what the GROW AMERICA Act will do. Of course, if you want to do that, you need stable funding. When I looked at what the American people want, I saw immediately the link between that and this Special Order hour today. If you look at the most important problems in American life, it is amazing what they are. The Gallup Poll asked, What is the most important issue for the American people? There were eight issues. Of those eight issues, seven out of eight have to do with the economy. Number one was economic problems, divided into the economy and unemployment and jobs. Federal deficit and Federal debt were there, but everything else was about jobs and the economy. There are gaps between the rich and the poor, lack of money--that is how the American people put--wage issues, and the high cost of living. There you have it. What is the best way to do what Americans want. I agree with my good friend from California, we had a good hearing this morning, but I wonder if both of you weren't surprised that there was not more talk in this very bipartisan hearing that we had about jobs and the relationship to the surface transportation bill. I think there is a reason for that. That is that we can't yet pass the first hurdle: How are we going to pay for it? It costs money. Your chart there--rail, buses, ports, bridges, highways--are not free. We are so hung up on trying to do the impossible, fund all of those without money, that we can't get to what the money will do. We are approaching the absolute deadline, May 31. The construction season is already here. It is 65 degrees in Washington, D.C., today. I wonder, Congress knows that that very first bill, that Eisenhower bill in 1956, had a 13-year authorization because the Republicans in the 1950s were attuned to how long it takes to do exactly the kinds of things, Mr. Garamendi, that your chart points to, and you need an authorization more than a few months or even a few years to get that done--a 13-year authorization. No wonder that those post-World War II years were the very best years for the American economy. The States simply cannot make capital improvements. That is what your chart speaks to. Every last one of those is a capital improvement. You can't do it without capital funds that come in bulk. The States, of course, have thrown up their hands. How many of them have just said, ``We have got to do it if Congress won't do anything; we just can't go on like this''? Of course, they are forgoing the projects they most need because no State has that kind of funds. Eleven States don't even have the option of putting up their own funds, they depend so heavily on Federal funds. But to show the link that I came to the floor to make to jobs, the occupations with the largest growth today would make the American people cry. Number one is personal care aides. Heaven knows we need them. We are having a big rally here in the District tomorrow because of the low pay of these workers. But at the bottom is construction laborers. The personal care aides make median $19,000, almost $20,000. The construction laborers make almost $30,000. That is a difference between a higher-wage job and those are the kind of jobs you are talking about, Mr. Garamendi--and a low-wage job. We are making only low-wage jobs because we are not, in fact, funding bills that would not only deal with rail, buses, ports, bridges, and highways, but the other parts of our transportation and infrastructure that my good friend has also mentioned. Of the fastest growing occupations, the top 10, only two have to do with what would grow America--insulation workers and brick and stone masons, Those are only two of the top 10. In my own district, the District of Columbia, I would hate to ask you to guess what is the occupation with the largest job growth--security guards. We need security guards and we welcome security guards, but I want my two friends at the podiums to know that not one job, not one truly high-paid job, except registered nurses and lawyers--God forgive us--is on this list. So I come to the floor to thank both of my good friends for the conversation you have been having, to join it, and to link it to what worries the American people. They can think about nothing these days. They don't even think about ISIL. They hardly even thought about the Department of Homeland Security bill that we just passed here only last week. They can't think about anything except that as we say, rightly, there is a growth in jobs, and yet their wages stagnate because the growth is not where the wages would grow.

Ms. NORTON. Well, my additional thoughts are really stimulated by the comments that both of you have made. You spoke about manufacturing. One of the reasons, one of the first things that occurred that got out of this recession was that manufacturing began to come back in America; and now, of course, corporations are finding good reasons to manufacture in America, and particularly at this time. Mr. Tonko, in essence, you were talking about stimulating the economy, and the best way to do it is to build something. You mentioned the buildings in Washington. If you look at the cornerstone of virtually all the public buildings downtown, the buildings that people come to see, the Federal buildings, they all have a 1930s cornerstone, because that is when we stimulated ourselves out of the Depression. Mr. Garamendi mentioned Amtrak. Well, this is the hub of Amtrak, my own district. I must tell you, when I think about high-speed rail, speaking of Amtrak--and we haven't put the first high-speed rail on line, not the first, which puts us behind not only all of our allies, but even some developing countries. It makes me almost ashamed to be on this committee, we are so behind. If we really wanted to get the economy going, we would give ourselves a deadline for high-speed rail. We would understand that if you want to move your economy quickly, you do not do something like cut taxes. You build things. You build America. I don't know how much time you have left, but I just want to thank you for the leadership, Mr. Garamendi, that you have taken and to say to you that I am with you as we continue to remind this Congress that this should be one of its foremost tasks this year: our surface transportation bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank my good friend, Representative Robin Kelly from Illinois, for her leadership on this night, this first night back. For Members back from Selma, I appreciate that our chair of the Congressional Black Caucus has been here to give us very important background and history. I particularly appreciate that we have just heard from a Member from Alabama, itself, Representative Terri Sewell, and all of that seems to me to be the appropriate prelude for what we are doing here tonight. Mr. Speaker, yes, this is the first day we are back from this historic trip and are back from the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act. There is no place for the almost 100 Members who went to Selma to be but on this floor this evening. I want to thank Attorney General Holder for taking the crippled Voting Rights Act and continuing to enforce it. The trip to Selma essentially set the stage for Members to come back and to regard our trip as a call to action and get down to work to revitalize the 1965 Voting Rights Act. My thanks to Representative Jim Sensenbrenner and to Representative John Conyers for cosponsoring a revised version of the act. My thanks to John Lewis, who has kept Selma and the Voting Rights Act alive by his annual trips with Members and others to Selma. I am appreciative of the almost 100 Members from both parties who went to Selma on the 6th and 7th. What was the purpose of going? It could not have been a celebration. You can celebrate the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It has not been dismembered. You can celebrate the 1968 fair housing law. It still is on the books. But you go to Selma to try to bring back to its full glory the Voting Rights Act of 1965, where setback with section 5 has rendered the act virtually obsolete for most of its original purposes. I stress that the Supreme Court did not invalidate the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It invited the 100 Members who went to Selma and the others in this body to modernize the act. We may differ on how to do that. I do not think there can be any doubt that it has to be revised and that we have to meet the challenge that the Supreme Court has given us. After all, the Voting Rights Act has prevented, literally, hundreds of discriminatory voting practices, and there were countless practices that it simply deterred. I must say that I was disappointed that, early on in this session, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Representative Goodlatte, indicated that he did not believe that the act was necessary, and he talked about the 11 Southern States that had been under the act. The fact is that the preclearance Voting Rights Act requirements went far beyond those States. At the time of the Supreme Court decision in 2013, Arizona and Alaska were covered. Parts of California, New York, South Dakota, and Michigan were covered. In the past, parts of Hawaii, Colorado, New Hampshire, Idaho, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Wyoming, Maine, New Mexico, and Oklahoma have been covered. It is true that at the heart of the coverage were the 11 Southern States, but that is where the heart of the violations were, in fact, tracked. That is where the poll taxes were. That is where the violations were. There has been a compromise bill that has been put forward by Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Conyers. In the very act of going to Selma, there was put upon us an obligation to come back and respond to that trip. The bill before us has tried to meet some of the objections that were raised. There is a rolling preclearance formula, for example, that does not require congressional reauthorization. There is a bail-in section of the act to reach those who had not been covered. There are a minimum number of violations over a period of time that have to be recorded in order for a state to come under the act. As my good friend from Alabama, Terri Sewell, says, the act is not what all of us wanted, but it does mean that in the spirit of compromise and because of the necessity of this act, this act which democratized the South and is necessary now--perhaps not as necessary as it was 50 years ago--but no one can doubt, as a Supreme Court Justice himself said when he said he didn't doubt that there was still discrimination in voting practices, but he said it was up to the Congress to modernize the bill. I don't see how almost 100 Republican and Democratic Members can have gone to Selma on the 50th anniversary without coming back to revise the act. We went emptyhanded. We went without a bill. I hope that what we got in Selma was the gumption to come back and to put forward a bill. Yes, the act has been dismembered by the Supreme Court, but the Court asked us to reshape it. It asked us to restore it. It was one thing to go without a bill. It is quite another to come back and do nothing about a bill. The President did not hesitate to say where the responsibility, in fact, lies, and I am quoting from his speech in Selma: One hundred Members of Congress have come here today to honor people who were willing to die for the right it protects. If we want to honor this day, let these 100 go back to Washington and gather 400 more and, together, pledge to make it their mission to restore the law this year. That is our mission. The trip to Selma, where we went in the name of the entire Congress, demands that we act before the end of this Congress.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, there is a bit of a dustup over D.C.'s new marijuana reform law. D.C. has never defied the Congress, although it has been tempting, especially several times when the Federal Government shut down, shutting down the District with it, although the District, of course, is no part of these disputes. The majority language in the appropriation bill said that the District couldn't enact marijuana laws. The law was enacted before that language was passed. When approved by the voters, there was nothing further to be done. Small amounts of marijuana became legal in the District, smoked in private. On Thursday, D.C. has taken no further official action, and is in compliance with the law as passed by Congress. The most important impetus for passage by residents was two independent studies that showed that virtually all of those who now carry marijuana arrests are young African Americans. That was the last straw for a substance that is de facto legal for most Americans. D.C. passage is neutral on its face. It doesn't recommend the substance. We ought to have the same liberty other Americans already enjoy on this substance.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the 60th anniversary of Hexagon, the only original musical satirical comedy revue in the nation's capital. With its multiple honors, Hexagon continues to serve the District of Columbia, both with entertainment and service by donating the proceeds of each show to a different charity in the District each year. Hexagon was founded in 1955 by a group of young Washingtonians seeking a way to have ``pure fun and nonsense.'' The group started out writing songs and parodies for the show ``Meet the Beep,'' which ran for five performances at the Holton-Arms School in the spring of 1956. The comedy troupe started earning a profit and earned $3,500, which they donated to local charities. Even though the group was not founded as a charitable organization, it has donated $3.5 million to more than 40 organizations since its inception. Due to a lack of funds in 2008, Hexagon, unfortunately, had to move out of the District into a venue nearby in Montgomery County, Maryland, but I am proud to say that after seven years, Hexagon is back in the District, and will be performing at Wilson High School in Tenleytown. Hexagon has been honored with a number of distinguished awards, including the Presidential Medal of ``Distinguished Service'' from President Ronald Reagan in 1987. In 1992, Hexagon was given the honor of becoming Washingtonian of the Year for its contributions to the community and area charities. Hexagon was one of the first organizations to be recognized with this award. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the 60th anniversary of Hexagon, and in wishing the group success in continuing its proud legacy in the nation's capital.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Until the Federal Government owns up to investing more in the railroad that we own, Amtrak will be running a 20th century railroad--or is it a 19th century railroad, Mr. Chairman?

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the Amtrak reauthorization before us today speaks volumes for the chairman and ranking member of our committee. It is the first Amtrak bill on the floor since 2008. It is a bipartisan bill. But, it also speaks volumes that Amtrak has performed so well without additional revenue. This bill leaves Amtrak at about level funding, just a tiny bit more. When we call Amtrak ``America's railroad,'' that is not a metaphor, Mr. Chairman. All of its stock is owned by the Department of Transportation. The reason for that is that the private sector in the 1970s found running a railroad to be a money-losing proposition and asked the Federal Government to take over Amtrak. Amtrak, of course, is a fiction. It is structured as a private company. But like every railroad in the world, it is either subsidized by the government or the public cannot afford to ride. The bill has almost no new funding, but even without new funding, Amtrak has already scored great points. Amtrak has essentially overseen the revival of train travel in the United States of America, and it has done so in a way that the government can take almost no credit for. For example, ticket revenue was $1.5 billion in 2005; then we go 5 years later to 2010, it is $1.8 billion; and today, it is $2.1 billion. Yet the average ticket has increased only $5 every 5 years over that period of time. Amtrak knows what the market is about, and it has grown based on volume, not revenue. The railroad has seen phenomenal growth in passengers, reaching records as high as its highest record in 1988, when the equipment was much newer. An important measure of efficiency is simply the number of seats filled. More Amtrak seats are filled today than at any time. Its on- time performance is above 80 percent, and that is amazing when you consider that Amtrak does not own most of the tracks it runs over. They are owned by the freight companies. The first cause of delay, frequent freight traffic. The second cause of delay, reduced speed needed for maintenance. Amtrak has shown it knows how to run a railroad, and to run a railroad on time, but Amtrak needs to be able to run a 21st century railroad.

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Local Prosecutor Establishment Act of 2015, to give District of Columbia residents another element of the self-government enjoyed by all other American citizens. The bill would establish a local prosecutor's office designated under local law, to prosecute all local crimes in the District. Under the Home Rule Act, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, a federal entity, is responsible for prosecuting most local crimes here, the greater part of its caseload, in addition to prosecuting federal crimes. This bill is special because it effectuates a 2002 advisory referendum, approved by 82 percent of D.C. voters, to create a local prosecutor's office. There is no law enforcement issue of greater importance to D.C. residents on which they have less say than the prosecution of local crimes here. A U.S. Attorney has no business prosecuting the local crimes of a jurisdiction, an anachronism that is out of place in any American self-governing jurisdiction. The goal of the legislation is to give the District the same jurisdiction over the criminal justice matters that state and local jurisdictions justifiably regard as mandatory. The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia would continue to handle federal matters, like the other U.S. Attorneys in our country. As presently constituted, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia is the largest in the country, only because it also serves as the local city prosecutor. The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia needs to be freed up to handle national security and other vital federal cases, particularly in the post-9/11 nation's capital. Amending the Home Rule Act to create a local prosecutor would be an important step toward our goal of achieving true self-government. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Transit Tax Parity Act of 2015. The bill would expand federal commuter tax benefits for transit and make them equal to those for parking. Currently, the transit benefit is half the level of the parking benefit. This bill would permanently raise the transit benefit to equal the parking benefit for commuters, in an effort to equalize the commuter options and to reduce congestion and pollution. This bill would encourage commuters to use transit by equalizing tax benefits for mass transit and parking benefits at a time when transit systems have precipitously lost riders because of the inequality in benefits. Congress did the sensible thing when it increased the commuter benefit cap to be the same as parking in previous years, but when that parity ended, transit benefits decreased to $130, just over half the benefits for driving. The decrease in transit benefits has led to a striking reduction in transit system ridership across the country. For example, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), the second largest transit system in the nation, runs throughout the national capital region and has seen a 25 percent decrease in Metrorail commuters, with riders switching to alternative means of commuting once they reach the $130 limit. Congressional action is urgently needed to make federal tax benefits for transit and parking equal at $250. Millions of people commute in and out of cities every day, bolstering the American economy and improving the overall well-being of the country. Why would we want to encourage people to drive rather than use mass transit? At the very least, there is no excuse for preferential treatment of driving. There are also environmental benefits that result from encouraging commuters to use mass transit and commuter rail instead of driving. Greater use of transit is consistent with the goals of reducing pollution from auto emissions, improving public health and reducing traffic congestion, which adds huge costs to the American economy and disrupts family life. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Maryland for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this bill has a lot of chutzpah even for a probusiness majority. The point of the review and comment regulatory process is to hear from everybody, to pull everybody into the process. I have experienced how this process worked when I chaired the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In order to make sure I heard from everyone, I took a process which issued guidelines, which did not come under the Administrative Procedure Act, and put it under the Administrative Procedure Act to make sure I heard from everyone. In a real sense, I knew, I thought I knew what the public wanted because I was a civil rights lawyer. I was particularly interested in whether the reforms I was instituting would work in practice. So I was more interested, in a real sense, in what the business community said. I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, in these processes, the business community, small and large, dwarfs the public in the amount of comment that agencies receive. This bill breaks a cardinal rule by excluding, of all people, the public, while industry gets an advance look at a bill. Understand, it is the industry that is being regulated, industry that has the high- cost lobbyists, the high-cost lawyers that the public does not have. So what is the point here, Mr. Chairman? It is clear. The point is to get industry in on writing the bill itself and writing it at that stage before the public even gets to know what the bill is. This is not a tilt in favor of the objects of regulations; it is a slide in their favor. If the point is the usual bipartisan point, to help small businesses--which, by the way, is already a stakeholder--along with other businesses, why pit small businesses against small children and small mortgage holders and small IT users? Another extraordinary thing I see in this bill is that the court- hating majority, at least in this bill, falls in love with the judiciary by inviting litigation before the rule is final. The courts will just love that. On top of everything else, this bill adds $18 million over 10 years to agency spending?

Ms. NORTON. $18 million that this majority certainly will not appropriate. Small business always have been a bipartisan concern. We have many more of them in our districts than we have large businesses. Small businesses are not who will come to ``consult.'' It is the global multinationals who are applauding this bill as we speak. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate and commend Mrs. Brooks of Indiana and Mr. Payne of New Jersey for sponsoring the Social Media Working Group Act of 2013 which addresses an emerging and important topic in emergency management. More and more, we are seeing social media, especially Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, playing a critical role in the preparedness, response, and recovery operations in emergency situations. In the past few years, social media has become a valuable tool that has been used by emergency managers at all levels to warn those in harm's way of impending natural disasters. I might add that the same could occur in terrorist disasters. Moreover, it has been used to inform survivors of how to access disaster assistance and tips for speedier recovery. Equally important, social media has been used to coordinate and manage assistance from nonprofits and volunteers who want to help in recovery efforts. It is not just emergency managers who use social media regarding emergencies. Individuals have used social media to help identify locations where assistance may still be needed and to raise awareness of impending hazards. They have used it to communicate with loved ones who may be impacted by an event, as well as to reconnect pets with their owners. It was no different here in the District of Columbia, Mr. Speaker, after 9/11, and I refer to the earthquake centered in Mineral, Virginia, but certainly felt in every part of the Nation's Capital. Because cellphone service was jammed, residents turned to social media to communicate. Within minutes of that earthquake, Twitter noted that over 40,000 earthquake-related tweets were sent about the occurrence. Facebook noted 3 million mentions related to the earthquake. In 2010, the Department of Homeland Security established the Virtual Social Media Working Group to provide recommendations on how to use social media before, during, and after emergencies. The existing working group consists of emergency responders, nonprofit organizations, and Federal agencies. H.R. 623 would codify the working group to make certain that their good work continues. To allow for broader representation, the bill expands the working group membership to include the private sectors and requires consultation with nonmembers. To ensure accountability, the bill requires an annual report to Congress on important issues such as best practices and lessons learned. It would also provide recommendations on various issues, including how to improve the use of social media for emergency management purposes. This is a very timely bill, Mr. Speaker. It will assist in informing the public of critical emergency information which may well save lives and reduce injuries. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I was coming to the floor, I tweeted and Facebooked that I would be on the floor managing this bill. We are used to Tweeting and Facebooking our every movement, usually for fun--and yes, even to come on the floor. I will be very interested to know whether, after we had the tragic accident last month in our Metro system when we lost one life--and we know for sure communication between the District of Columbia fire, emergency, and Metro was informed--I will be very interested to know whether Facebook, Twitter, and other forms of social media were helpful. I cannot believe they were not. We all think of social media for social fun. What is important about the bill that my two colleagues, Representative Brooks and Representative Payne, have brought to us is, of course, that it shows a very essential use. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), a cosponsor of the bill.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the sponsor and cosponsor once again on this vital and valuable bill. As we see the kinds of, really, unheard of events we are experiencing, it seems to us often that phones and cell phones are so 20th century. Twitter and Facebook are the functional equivalent for many Americans of 911. So today on this floor, I think we are resolved that social media are, to be sure, often about fun and games, but they may also be about life and death. I am pleased to support this bill and ask Members for its support here in the House. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, District of Columbia residents raise billions of dollars annually for their local budget, and, like Americans everywhere, claim the right to control the funds they themselves raise to support their city as fundamental to their American citizenship. Therefore, today I introduce the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act of 2015, the second bill I introduce this Congress, to allow the District's local-taxpayer-raised budget to take effect immediately when passed by the city, without being subject to congressional approval. Control over the dollars raised by local taxpayers is central to local control, the oldest American government principle. Beyond this core principle, permitting the city's local budget to become law without a redundant congressional approval would have multiple practical benefits for both the city and Congress. For the city, a timely budget means eliminating the uncertainty of the congressional approval process, which has a significant negative effect on the city's bond rating, adding unnecessary interest costs for local taxpayers; improving the District's ability to make accurate revenue forecasts; and reducing the countless operational problems that result when the city's budget cannot be implemented until Congress approves it (even when it is not delayed, which rarely occurs). Also of major importance, the bill would permit the District to use the typical state and local government fiscal year (July 1-June 30), which is used to provide ample time to prepare for the opening of schools in September, instead of the current federal fiscal year (October 1-September 30), used for the convenience of Members of Congress, not the needs of the city. Moreover, the D.C. local budget consumes valuable subcommittee, committee, and floor time in both houses of Congress, the most inefficient and redundant annual process in the Congress. Yet the D.C. budget is of interest only to those members who use it to promote their own issues, violating a principle of local self-government that they value for their own districts and states. Increasing recognition of the hardships and delays caused by the congressional approval process has led Congress to begin freeing the city from many congressional constraints. We made significant progress in the last Congress on a major element of budget autonomy. There is unprecedented bipartisan and bicameral support for preventing D.C. shutdowns, which have been constantly threatened as the Congress now almost always fails to pass appropriations bills. Under the fiscal year 2014 D.C. Appropriations bill, D.C. was, for the first time ever, exempt from shutdowns for an entire fiscal year--2015. The fiscal year 2015 D.C. Appropriations bill also exempts D.C. from shutdowns for all of fiscal year 2016. In addition, the president's budgets last Congress and the Senate's D.C. appropriations bills would have granted D.C. budget autonomy. This progress from both Congress and the Executive invites the inevitable next step--a permanent shutdown exemption bill. The importance of eliminating shutdown threats to the District was definitively shown recently. The three leading bond rating agencies favorably cited the fiscal year 2014 D.C. Appropriations bill provision exempting D.C. from a shutdown in fiscal year 2015. In upgrading their ratings on the District's outstanding general obligation bonds, Standard & Poor's Rating Services and Fitch Ratings both favorably cited the provision, and Moody's Investors Service favorably cited the provision while maintaining D.C.'s rating. Several years ago, we negotiated an agreement with a Republican-led appropriations committee that ensures that the city's local budget is approved in the first continuing resolution (CR) if the D.C. Appropriations bill has not been approved by the start of the fiscal year, another important step that responded to practical realities. This approach ended the annual nightmares of lengthy delays of approval of the local budget of a big city until a national appropriations bill was passed, often months after the start of the fiscal year. As a result, under CRs, the city has been able to spend its local funds at the next year's funding level, even though federal agencies must spend at the prior year's funding level. We are deeply appreciative that this process, which eliminated serious problems for the functioning of the D.C. government, has continued. We nearly secured budget autonomy for the District in the last days of the lame-duck session in the 111th Congress, when Democrats were in control. We got the House authorizers to include budget autonomy in the fiscal year 2011 D.C. Appropriations bill, which was passed by the subcommittee. Unfortunately, the Democratic Senate did not include budget autonomy in its appropriations bill, and Congress passed a CR instead of regular appropriations bills in the lame duck. Most important, we gained critical support for D.C. budget autonomy in the 112th and 113th Congresses. In an Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing in May 2011, Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) endorsed budget autonomy. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell (R) during that year both indicated their support for budget autonomy. Last Congress, Majority Leader Cantor and Chairman Issa both continued in their support for budget autonomy. The President's fiscal year 2015 budget, for the second time, will have granted D.C. budget autonomy. The Senate's fiscal year 2015 D.C. Appropriations bill granted the District budget autonomy, which was the first ever appropriations bill to grant it. We also got budget autonomy introduced as a stand-alone bill in the Senate. We kept the budget autonomy referendum from being overturned in Congress. However, a federal district court struck it down and an appeal is pending before a federal appeals court. Even if the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act of 2015 were enacted, Congress would still retain jurisdiction over the District of Columbia under article I, section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution until statehood is achieved. This authority allows Congress to make changes to the District's budget at any time, as we saw last week when the House voted to permanently ban the District from spending its local funds on abortion services for low-income women. Therefore, it is unnecessary to require the District to incur the costs and delays of transmitting its local budget for congressional approval. The time is overdue to permit the city to enact its local budget, the single most immediate step Congress could take to help the District better manage itself. Members of Congress were sent to Washington to do the business of the nation, not a local jurisdiction. Members have no reason to be interested in or to become knowledgeable about the local budget of a single city or jurisdiction far from their own. In the past, the House and Senate have more often than not passed the District's budget as is. Our budget autonomy bill takes the Congress in the direction it is already moving.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado. Is there any way to make an anti-women, anti-health, anti-choice bill worse? Sure there is. Add a provision that keeps a local jurisdiction-- the District of Columbia--from spending its own local funds on abortion services for poor women, exactly as 17 States of the Union do. Americans will ask: How on Earth can you do that in this country? Laughably--by declaring the District of Columbia government to be a virtual Federal agency. This bill hurts millions of women across the country who have a constitutional right to make choices about their own health. It compounds that discrimination by violating the oldest American principle--local control of local funds. The Senate has repeatedly rejected this bill, and I expect them to have the good sense to repeat that rejection.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the New Columbia Admission Act with 93 original cosponsors, a record number. I am introducing the District of Columbia statehood bill as my first bill for the 114th Congress, an indication of its importance to the residents of the District of Columbia. This bill got its first-ever Senate hearing last Congress, ensuring that statehood is on the congressional agenda. Residents were so encouraged by the prospect of the first Senate hearing on our bill that more DC residents attended than had come to any DC hearing in memory. Their enthusiasm reflects that residents of our nation's capital have always been citizens of the United States but remain the only taxpaying Americans who do not have full and equal citizenship rights. The denial of local control of local matters and of equal representation in the Congress of the United States can be remedied only by statehood. Therefore, I am introducing the New Columbia Admission Act to create a state from essentially the eight home-town wards of the District of Columbia. This 51st state, of course, would have no jurisdiction over the federal territory or enclave that now consists of the Washington that Members of Congress and visitors associate with the capital of our country. The U.S. Capitol premises, the principal federal monuments, federal buildings and grounds, the National Mall, and other federal property here would remain under federal jurisdiction. Our bill provides that the State of New Columbia would be equal to the other fifty states in all respects, as is always required, and the residents of New Columbia would have all the rights of citizenship as taxpaying American citizens, including two senators and, initially, one House member. The District of Columbia recognizes that it can enter the Union only on an equal basis and is prepared to do so. The New Columbia Admission Act was the first bill I introduced after I was first sworn in as a Member of Congress in the 102nd Congress in 1991. Our first try for statehood received significant support in the House. In 1993, we got the first and only vote on statehood for the District, with nearly 60% of Democrats and one Republican voting for the New Columbia Admission Act. The Senate held a hearing on various approaches to representation, but the committee of jurisdiction did not proceed further. In the 113th Congress, our statehood bill got unprecedented momentum with the Senate's first-ever hearing on statehood, which was the first congressional hearing held on statehood in more than 20 years, since the House held its hearing on statehood in 1993, and obtained a record number of cosponsors in the House and Senate, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, as well as the other top three Democratic leaders in the Senate. In addition, President Obama endorsed DC statehood in a public forum before the statehood hearing was held. Statehood is the only alternative for the citizens of the District of Columbia. To be content with less than statehood is to concede the equality of citizenship that is the birthright of our residents as citizens of the United States. That is a concession no American citizen has ever made, and one DC residents will not make as they approach the 214th year in their fight for equal treatment in their country. This bill reaffirms our determination to obtain each and every right enjoyed by citizens of the United States, by becoming the 51st State in the Union.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in their first votes of the 114th Congress, the majority used their first vote to eliminate the vote in the Committee of the Whole of the residents of your Nation's Capital. That vote on some, but certainly not all, matters had been approved by the Federal courts. The District of Columbia has used this vote in three Congresses, but not when Republicans controlled. With their large majority, Republicans showed themselves to be small in principle when they voted to eliminate the vote of D.C. citizens, who pay the highest Federal taxes per capita in the Nation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in recognizing Gwen Benson-Walker, who has served as my Chief of Staff for three years and has been a valuable member of my staff for most of my service in Congress. On December 31, 2014, Gwen transitioned from my office to a well-deserved retirement. Gwen's strong work ethic, intelligence, and enthusiastic personality will surely be missed by her colleagues in the House, the residents of the District of Columbia, and especially my office. Gwen was not born into the advantages offered to many in our society. Instead, she has always worked her way to success. Aside from her work in my office, Gwen has owned and operated several business ventures. She is a highly-regarded public speaker and a published author. Gwen Benson-Walker performed with excellence and energy whatever work she was asked to do in my office. She served as a caseworker, and her capacity for hard work and her wise head, led her to roles as scheduler/executive assistant and finally as chief of staff. Even when Gwen moved away from the District of Columbia, she has always returned to our staff upon her return. When not on staff, Gwen was the enthusiastic volunteer coordinator for the annual Children's Christmas Party in the Capitol, lavishing love on the city's low-income children. Most recently, Gwen served as my Chief of Staff, a position in which she flourished, skillfully organizing and running a busy congressional office. Gwen was a confidant to whom I turned to for advice and a friend and a mentor to staff. She led by example in her professionalism and insistence on excellence, her dedication, generosity, collegiality and good humor. Gwen is off to retirement in Spain, but she leaves too many family members and friends not to return often to her native land. Gwen now becomes a treasured life member of Team Norton. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Gwen Benson-Walker for outstanding service to the House of Representatives and my office, and to the residents of the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a motion that is at the desk.

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