Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Donald E. Graham for his outstanding contributions to the nation and to the people of the nation's capital. Don Graham is best known for his unique contributions to the field of journalism, but he is also greatly admired in the District of Columbia, his hometown, as a citizen and leader. For more than four decades, Don Graham has played a significant role in the life of the nation and here in the District of Columbia. Don served his country for two years during the Vietnam War, prior to returning to the District of Columbia and joining the D.C.'s police department, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). At MPD, Don courageously dedicated himself to serving the residents of the District as a patrol officer in the Ninth Precinct in the Northeast section of the District of Columbia. Only after charting his life with these experiences, life changing in themselves, did Don begin his career in professional journalism, in 1971, when he joined the family business as a reporter. Don Graham proceeded to come up through the ranks of the Washington Post and eventually became Publisher of the paper and then Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Washington Post Company. During his tenure, Don Graham shepherded a historic era at the Post. Under his leadership, the Post not only won more than 20 Pulitzer Prizes, it entered into the digital age, launched a website, and began printing in color. Beyond his stellar accomplishments in journalism, Don Graham also has made notable contributions to the District of Columbia and its residents. He has continued a family tradition of service to the District with special attention to secondary education and higher education. Don was the driving force behind the D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant program (DCTAG), not only in our ability to achieve federal funding for higher education unique to the District, but in what it has taken to maintain it for 15 years. DCTAG has doubled college attendance in the District of Columbia, allowing D.C. students, who have no state university system, to attend any state university in the country with up to $10,000 per year in assistance. Moreover, Don has gone even further in pursuit of higher education opportunities for D.C. residents. He is a co-founder of the D.C. College Access Program, which has assisted over 13,000 D.C. students and provided over $18 million in scholarships. Most recently, Don has formed TheDream.US, a new scholarship program that seeks to assist undocumented students, who cannot qualify for federal financial aid programs. Don sold the Post to engage in other pursuits, leaving the paper in good hands to continue its distinctive contributions. However, Don Graham's dedicated public service as a private citizen continues to this day. Mr. Speaker, I could only summarize Donald E. Graham's achievements. Even so, it should now be clear why I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Donald E. Graham for his service to American journalism and for his continuing service to the residents of the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I urge the majority to live up to its professed support for the principles of federalism, limited government, and local control of local affairs by not interfering in the local laws of the District of Columbia. The bill limits the District's authority over its local marijuana laws, and prohibits D.C. from spending its local funds on abortion services for low-income women. I am here to put on the record that the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee's stated view that the bill's D.C. marijuana rider blocks the D.C. marijuana legalization initiative from taking effect is not the view of the entire House, as well as to preserve the ability of the District and its lawyers to review, analyze and interpret the rider's effect for themselves. Based on a plain reading of the bill and principles of statutory interpretation, it is arguable that the rider does not block D.C. from carrying out its marijuana legalization initiative. The House-passed D.C. marijuana rider, introduced by Representative Andy Harris, and this bill's D.C. marijuana rider are not identical. Unlike the Harris rider, this bill's rider does not block D.C. from ``carrying out'' enacted marijuana policies. D.C.'s Initiative 71, it can be argued, was enacted when it was approved overwhelmingly by voters in November and is self-executing--i.e., it did not require enactment of any rules for its implementation. Therefore, it can be argued that the legalization of small amounts of marijuana in D.C. can proceed. The District legalized marijuana primarily to combat racial injustice, after two independent studies, one by the American Civil Liberties Union of the Nation's Capital and the other by the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, found shocking racial disparities in the enforcement of marijuana laws in D.C. In D.C., Whites and Blacks use marijuana at the same rates, and Blacks compromise slightly less than 50% of the population, but Blacks are eight times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than non-Blacks, and 91% of all marijuana arrests are of Blacks. These disparities exist in urban areas throughout the country. Arrests and convictions for marijuana possession ruin lives, especially those of Black males. An arrest or conviction for marijuana possession often condemns Blacks, particularly those from low-income neighborhoods, to joblessness. Losing the ability to find legitimate work can lead a person to the underground economy, even to selling drugs, rather than mere possession. The Black community itself pays the price because men without the prospect of employment often do not form stable families. There may be some misconceptions about the District's legalization law. The District has the narrowest and strictest marijuana legalization law in the country. D.C. will not become a regional or national haven for marijuana use or transactions. Unlike D.C., the four states that have legalized marijuana permit the sale and purchase of marijuana. Under D.C.'s marijuana legalization law, possession and home cultivation are permitted, but all the following are not permitted: sales or purchase, retail stores, smoking in public, and possession by those under 21 years of age. The bill also blocks the District from spending its local funds to provide abortion services for low-income women. We are talking about 100% local D.C. funds, not federal funds. D.C. raises almost $7 billion per year in local funds through taxes and fees. As with marijuana, the District is being singled out for unfair treatment. Seventeen states, including Arizona, Alaska, and West Virginia, spend their local funds on abortion services for low-income women. The bill does not block them from doing so. When the D.C. abortion rider was re-imposed in April 2011, many low-income D.C. women had to immediately cancel their scheduled appointments for reproductive health services, because, unlike wealthier D.C. women, they relied on D.C. to pay for their health care services. I urge Congress to respect the local laws of the 650,000 American citizens who live in the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for all of her hard work on this bill. District of Columbia voters passed the most restrictive marijuana legalization law in the country, Initiative 71, allowing possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use only. Four States have legalized marijuana. The city was motivated by two independent studies revealing shameful racial disparities, disparities that are endemic, by the way, in the rest of the country as well in marijuana possession arrests. Ninety percent of marijuana arrests here are of African Americans, though Blacks and Whites use marijuana at the same rate in a city that is 50-50 Black and White. Do not expect residents to tolerate unequal treatment of the District of Columbia, a jurisdiction of Federal tax-paying Americans, and, on top of that, discrimination against African Americans who live here. I am trying to find a way around the antidemocratic language in the bill that bullies the District of Columbia. Congress must find its way out of the local affairs of the residents of the District, who pay the highest Federal taxes per capita in the United States, while the Member who represents them must stand by and watch every Member of this House vote on a matter affecting her district, except the Member who represents the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke), an original cosponsor of H.R. 3463, the House companion version of S. 1691.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. Chaffetz, for not only coming forward to manage this bill, but I thank him because he is the sponsor of a bipartisan bill very similar to the bill before us today, H.R. 3463; and I rise in strong support of S. 1691, the Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act of 2014, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Senators Tester and McCain. S. 1691 would enhance the Custom and Border Protection's ability to secure and patrol more than 6,000 miles of our Nation's borders between Mexico and Canada, and 2,000 miles of our coastal waters surrounding Florida and Puerto Rico. It would also respond to the growing threat of cyber attacks. This legislation, which is supported by the administration and the Border Patrol Council, would also save the American taxpayers about $100 million annually, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The bill would dramatically simplify the current pay system for our country's more than 21,000 courageous Border Patrol agents by eliminating compensation for overtime through what is called administratively uncontrollable overtime. Under a newly created pay system, Border Patrol agents would have three work schedule and compensation options. They could choose to, one, work 100 hours for each pay period and receive an increase in base salary by 25 percent; two, work 90 hours each pay period and receive an increase in base salary by 12.5 percent; or three, work 80 hours per pay period with no overtime. All unscheduled overtime worked beyond these hours would be treated as compensatory time off, with an annual maximum of 240 hours. The legislation would also set a minimum staffing requirement requiring that at least 90 percent of Border Patrol agents in any given location work 100 hours every pay period to ensure that Customs and Border Protection has the man-hours it needs to respond to threats and to secure the border. Under this new system, Border Patrol agents would work millions of hours longer than they do today, which equates to adding 1,500 agents to patrol the Nation's borders. S. 1691 would require Customs and Border Protection to submit to Congress a staffing plan detailing the agency's operational and staffing requirements to ensure hours worked matched the agency's needs. The Government Accountability Office would also be required to review the plan as an independent check. This bill would also address concerns regarding past abuses by prohibiting agents at headquarters and training academies and fitness instructors from working more than 80 hours per pay period unless the staffing plan shows a need for these employees to work additional hours. The legislation would also provide Customs and Border Protection with flexibility to lower the staffing floor set by the bill if the staffing plan shows that the agency can meet its operational requirements in a given location with fewer man-hours. S. 1691 would also require Customs and Border Protection, in consultation with the Office of Personnel Management, to develop a plan to prevent Border Patrol agents from artificially boosting their retirement annuities by selecting a higher rate of pay than they had historically within 3 years of being eligible to retire. The Government Accountability Office would be required to review this plan and to report to Congress on its effectiveness. An amendment introduced by Senator Carper also would add provisions allowing the Department of Homeland Security to recruit and retain cyber professionals by granting authority to hire qualified experts on an expedited basis and to pay them competitive salaries, wages, and incentives. The legislation also would require the Department to report annually on the program's progress. S. 1691 would provide much-needed reform to the compensation of Border Patrol agents and ensure that the Department of Homeland Security has the personnel it needs to deal with increasing cyber attacks. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this bipartisan legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke), the ranking member of the Cybersecurity Subcommittee of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I want to say how much I appreciate the views of the two Members who have spoken, the bipartisan way in which this bill has been handled in the House and in the Senate, and look forward to more bipartisanship to come, Mr. Chaffetz. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding, and I thank my good friend, Mr. Petri, whom I deeply regret seeing leave the Congress, as well, because he has contributed so very much to this Congress, particularly in the field of which we speak today. Of very few Members can it be said that they grew up in the Congress. One could almost say that about Jim Oberstar who came here as a legislative assistant to the Public Works Committee, then ultimately became its chief of staff, and then decided that he could do the whole thing and become a Member of Congress from the Eighth District of Minnesota. By the time Jim came to the Congress, he had such an early start that he already knew probably all anyone would expect any Member to know. This early start led to what can only be called breathtaking knowledge and, ultimately, achievements in the transportation and infrastructure field. He became not only my mentor but, literally, the personal mentor of every Member on each side of the aisle and, ultimately, a mentor to any Member of Congress who wanted to know anything about the Nation's transportation and infrastructure. At the bottom, Mr. Speaker, transportation and infrastructure is a very technical and specialized field. It takes hard work and brilliance to become a master of the roads, bridges, infrastructure, and bike and running trails of this country, let alone the complexities of intermodalism. It was a marvel to see Jim go at intermodalism. I had the opportunity to see him offer visionary leadership on intermodalism here with Union Station in Washington, D.C., and around the country. Mr. Speaker, Jim came to subcommittee hearings almost all the time and participated in these hearings with the same depth as the chair of the subcommittee. He never let his encyclopedic knowledge wither. Mr. Speaker, I have been on the committee ever since I came to Congress in 1991. I can say without any compunction that, if you were around Jim, no matter where you sat in the committee room, you could not avoid his kindness, his warmth, and his depth. Sometimes Jim may have told you more than you wanted to know about transportation and infrastructure, but at the end of the day, you were glad that you listened because you heard him speak, sometimes playfully, in French-- he always understood you had better keep using what you once had--but always offering the benefits of his knowledge, and using his great intellectual and personal gifts to bring us all in to the field he had mastered. No wonder Minnesota elected him to serve so long that he became the longest serving Member from the State. As we struggle still for a highway bill, I hope we will not forget this great Member who began as an ironworker, worked himself through college as an ironworker, organized unions, and never forgot the roots from which he came, and yet came to this Congress and made himself a friend of anyone who would listen. I am pleased to be associated with this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring former Congressman James Louis ``Jim'' Oberstar, my friend and mentor, and mentor to thousands. Jim represented the 8th district of Minnesota for 18 terms, from 1975 until 2011, but his breathtaking knowledge and achievements on transportation and infrastructure made him the nation's mentor on these issues. Born in Chisholm, Minnesota in 1934, Jim was the son of an iron miner and shirt factory worker. He learned at an early age the power of organizing workers to fight for fair wages and safe workplaces, and never forgot his roots in the working class and in the organizations they asked to represent them at the bargaining table. Jim worked in the Minnesota mines to fund his college education, graduating from the College at St. Thomas in St. Paul with degrees in French and political science. In 1963, Jim started his career on the Capitol Hill. He worked as legislative assistant and chief of staff for former Congressman John Blatnik, who represented Minnesota's 8th district at the time. He also served as chief of staff of the House Committee on Transportation and Public Works for many years. In 1974, Jim was elected to the House, where he was fully prepared to use his already well-developed knowledge of transportation and infrastructure as a member on the House Committee on Transportation and Public Works. Jim contributed to the work of building and rebuilding the nation's transportation systems--its road and bridge networks, and, as a cyclist himself, its bike and running trails. Jim's encyclopedic knowledge of the field led him to master the complexities associated with intermodalism, the transportation wave of the future. His work, for example, to make the District of Columbia's Union Station truly intermodal, still in progress, will always be emblematic of his visionary leadership. From the moment I joined the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, in 1991, I learned from Jim Oberstar and felt his warmth, kindness and depth. Jim not only led us, he nurtured us. Whether smiling as he playfully spoke French or offering the benefits of his commonsense knowledge, Jim's intellectual and personal gifts left us admiring him as a person and in awe of his knowledge and understanding of the field as a professional. Jim's outstanding work in the Congress led the people of Minnesota to make him the longest serving House member from their state, and Jim served the nation with special distinction at the same time. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in honoring Jim Oberstar for his many accomplishments for the 8th district of Minnesota and for his devotion to our nation's transportation and infrastructure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have been working with Mr. Crenshaw, with Senator Casey, and I congratulate them on this bill. But I want to say how deeply I regret that there are extraneous provisions in the bill concerning worker protections and offsets that keep it from being the bipartisan bill that it means to be, or else we wouldn't have seen virtually the whole House on the bill. So I have come to speak for the underlying bill and to hope that those provisions will somehow be swept aside and we can have the bill that I think most who signed on thought they were signing. We talk on both sides of the aisle, as well we should, about personal responsibility, but what we have been doing until this time was leaving the disabled dependent on their own parents or on charities without any way to liberate themselves from others. I think about the parents of 20-year-old autistic brothers who kept them locked up and had no way to liberate them or to care for them. Most woeful is dependence on charities who, themselves, get tax exemptions to take care of people who need them, and they do an excellent job. But, if we are going to give a tax break to people who take care of disabled people, surely there should be a tax benefit for them to take care of themselves. And just consider this: most disabled people, truly disabled people, are unable to find jobs of any kind; but if they do, they will not be the kinds of jobs normally that leave them able to open savings accounts, prepare for their own retirement, and the rest. So even if they were able to be employed, they still, of course, must look to other sources of income

Ms. NORTON. That is why this bill, in many ways, is so sensitive. It doesn't supplant any of the assistance that is necessary, like Medicaid and their own insurance that they may have or SSI. My own daughter, Katherine Felicia Norton, was the Global Down Syndrome ambassador this year. Katherine will probably not need one of these savings accounts. But I am here this afternoon to speak for all of those who do--and there are millions in our country--and to thank particularly the sponsors for what they are trying to do with this bill. I thank my good friend for yielding to me.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, a new generation of young people of every race is demonstrating nonviolently to make sure that the larger meaning of the Michael Brown tragedy is not lost. His death has become much more than a moment of anguish. Michael Brown has crystallized the painful experience that had found no outlet until now: the routine stops of Black men by police in the streets of our country because of the color of their skin. The body-mounted cameras, announced by the President yesterday, are a good and practical beginning. Let's hope that local communities will use this tragedy to assure a new era of genuine collaboration that citizens need with the police who serve and protect them.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating Step Afrika! on its 20th anniversary, which will be celebrated on December 4, 2014. Founded two decades ago, Step Afrika! was originally created as a cultural exchange program with the Soweto Dance Theatre of Johannesburg, South Africa, and has grown to become an internationally recognized dance company. Stepping is a uniquely American art form that originated on the campuses of Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Step Afrika! is the first professional company dedicated to the art of stepping. Step Afrika! promotes an appreciation for stepping through performances and arts education programs in the District of Columbia, across the rest of the United States and around the world. Step Afrika! specializes in the use of stepping as an educational tool for young students. Step Afrika! brings stepping and its associated values of teamwork, commitment and discipline to students in classrooms, non-traditional dance venues and performing arts venues. Step Afrika! introduced stepping to the Kennedy Center's Teaching Artist program in 1998, and served as the first step group for the Washington Performing Arts' Concerts in Schools program. In 2005, Step Afrika! earned its first DC Mayor's Arts Award for Outstanding Contribution to Education, in acknowledgement for its expanding role in arts education. Step Afrika! brings stepping to more than 20,000 students each year. Step Afrika! is also globally renowned. The organization serves as an official Cultural Ambassador for the U.S. State Department. It has represented the United States and countries around the world including South Sudan. Step Afrika! has also provided moral, welfare, and recreation programs for service members overseas in Bahrain and Djibouti. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Step Afrika!, its Founder and Executive Director, C. Brian Williams, and the Chair of Step Afrika!'s Board of Directors, Jacqueline N. Francis, M.D. on 20 years of service to the District of Columbia and the rest of the United States.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring Marion S. Barry, Jr., the four- term Mayor of the District of Columbia and Ward 8 Council Member, who is remembered for his work as a national civil rights leader and as a creator of post-home-rule D.C. Barry passed away on November 23, 2014. Born in Itta Bena, Mississippi in 1936, one of 10 children in a family of sharecroppers and one of Tennessee's first black Eagle Scouts, Marion brought his prodigious work ethic to the civil rights movement before coming to the District of Columbia. He left his PhD program in chemistry at Fisk University to help form the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), became its first national chairman, and continued to work for civil rights in the District and nationally. In 1965, Barry moved to the District of Columbia, and was quickly adopted by the city and its voteless residents. Barry used his political gifts and brilliant skills as a community organizer not only in the fight of its residents for jobs, equal rights, home rule, and statehood, but also applied them to the political process to become mayor of the city. He established Pride Inc., which received federal funding as it trained and found jobs for residents. Marion Barry was elected first as a member of the D.C. School Board. He went on to be elected as an at-large Member of the D.C. Council and then became the second home-rule mayor of the District of Columbia, in 1979. As mayor of the District of Columbia in the first years of home rule, Barry began the work to make home rule work. In his first term in office, Barry, who inherited a $100 million deficit, ordered the first audit in a century. He reduced the city's debt and balanced its budget. He opened employment and business contract opportunities to African Americans for the first time and established a summer jobs program that was to become his signature program. It gave many young people their first work experience, for which thousands still remain grateful. During his four terms as mayor, Barry never forgot his own roots in poverty, becoming an iconic figure, especially to the city's poor even as he worked to build an African American middle class. After his years as mayor, Barry became council member for Ward 8, the lowest-income ward in the city, where he also lived and was continually reelected. In his role as Ward 8 Council Member, Barry strongly supported congressional legislation that transferred valuable federal land, including Poplar Point in Ward 8, to the District of Columbia, and the congressional legislation that established the Department of Homeland Security headquarters, now being built on the St. Elizabeths property located in Ward 8, the first federal complex east of the Anacostia River. Marion Barry, who blazed his own path of ups and downs, published his autobiography, ``Mayor for Life: The Incredible Story of Marion Barry, Jr.'', this year. He was loved for his indomitable capacity to keep getting up and rise above controversy and criticism to work for residents of the District of Columbia until his last days. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in honoring Marion S. Barry, Jr., for his many accomplishments for the District of Columbia and for a lifetime of fighting for the oppressed and underserved.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I want to thank my good friend from New York for his leadership this evening--it is the kind of leadership he has provided ever since he has come to the Congress--and for the critique he has just offered. But I come to the floor this afternoon to try to convert that critique into an understanding of the big picture. Demonstrations have been going on, even though we are days away from the day when the indictment did not come down. In a country where you haven't seen demonstrations all across the United States for some time, why have demonstrations by young people broken out all across America? There is a message here that comes from the demonstrations and from the words of the parents of Michael Brown. His father pleaded that Michael Brown not have died in vain. The people in the streets are there to see that Michael Brown did not die in vain; that probable cause, once again, becomes color blind, to see that, when a young Black man goes into the street, he is not consistently and constantly profiled because of the color of his skin. These demonstrations show that issues of detention and stopping of Black men, especially Black men in the streets, has been simmering below the surface until this tragedy became a way for it to find an outlet. The provocative stops in the street--Eric Holder, a former U.S. Attorney, now the Attorney General of the United States, has been stopped in the streets of the Nation's Capitol. And I say to my good friends, this is a progressive city. I cannot imagine what it must be like across the United States. A young Black man in St. Louis held up a poster, which is all about the big picture. It said: ``We Are All Mike Brown.'' When my son goes into the streets, he is Michael Brown. We want an America so that when he goes into the street, he is like everybody else until he does something wrong and there is probable cause to show it. That does not occur in any city, in any small hamlet in the United States today, and so, yes, this great tragedy has become a vehicle to express that grievance. There are things that can be done. The President has just come forward with a request for an appropriation for body cameras, a small amount, 260-some million dollars. Body cameras work. We have found that when police have body cameras, they protect the police as well as protecting members of the public. So as we come to grips with the fact that there was no bill, no indictment, I hope we will not lose our focus on the big picture, that we are, in essence, sending a message to police departments all over the United States. Even though you think you are not doing it, what we are talking about is endemic throughout the United States. People are laying down in peaceful protest. Yes, they are blocking the streets. I must say, when I was a youngster in the civil rights movement, we tried not to inconvenience people; but, look, this is a wholly different day, and they mean to draw the attention of the entire public and, yes, of police around the United States to just how much of a festering sore unwarranted stops of people of color have been. I thank my good friend from New York for leading this Special Order. I thank the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus for leading us off tonight. In the spirit of Michael Brown's father, who asked that his son not have died in vain, let us make sure that we support the President's request for a pilot program for providing cameras, that we send the message back home to our police departments, and that we work together to make probable cause colorblind. I thank my good friend from New York.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the more than 500 volunteers who will gather at the District of Columbia's Columbia Heights Educational Campus Saturday, November 22, 2014, to begin packing and distributing Thanksgiving parcels for Project GiveBack's 20th Annual Food Distribution. Their efforts provide over 1,500 families in the National Capital Area with wholesome Thanksgiving dinners. Ransom Miller III founded Project GiveBack in 1995. In its first year, six local families and one shelter received food baskets. Over the next two decades, this small effort grew to serve 3,500 families in locations across the country, including Washington, D.C.; Dallas, Texas; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Tulsa, Oklahoma; St. Louis, Missouri; and Denver, Colorado. Project GiveBack's scope has also grown to include: Children's Toy Drive, to provide toys for children in low-income families; Children's Easter Celebration, to provide a safe and fun atmosphere for children in Southeast D.C. to celebrate the spiritual meaning of Easter; Computer Sponsor Progam, to assist local schools and community organizations in the acquisition of more than 100 laptops and personal computers; and Youth EXPOSURE Program, to connect students of various backgrounds and to expose them to a wide range of experiences that will spark career aspirations, ingenuity, and creativity. Project GiveBack is achieving its mission to be a vehicle for firms and professionals to give back to the communities where they work and live in by coordinating programs that benefit less fortunate individuals and families, with a focus on children. It is the intent of the organization to uplift communities around the United States mentally, spiritually, and economically. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in commending Project GiveBack's volunteers and sponsors and may they soon join the more than 650,000 residents in our nation's capital in thanksgiving for full representation for D.C. in Congress.

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this afternoon because of a threat, a rare threat, because this seldom happens in the House anymore, but a threat from at least one Member of this House to try to nullify a local initiative approved by the voters of the District of Columbia. But when it comes to the lawful initiative for District of Columbia citizens, that is a threat to democracy that means that anyone who represents this city, has to come to the floor and to indicate to Members how important it is to hold fast to your own principles. Wherever you stand on the District of Columbia or any of the underlying issues, this is the local jurisdiction of 650,000 people who pay taxes without full representation in this House. So I am asking Members of the House not to take advantage of an anachronism in the law which does allow Members of the House to step forward, if they are so inclined, to try to get others to join them in nullifying the local laws of a local jurisdiction. If one reads the history of our country, it is hard to find anything more un-American. That is why, particularly, I have to thank the bipartisan group of Members who stood with me yesterday, three Members of this House--two Democrats and a Republican--who themselves come from States that have taken action on the underlying issue, one that is rapidly developing in our country where the States differ among themselves. But since each State is, as a local or State matter, a government unto itself, those matters don't come before this House. The Members who stood with me yesterday were Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, which has approved a ballot initiative just this past election day, that legalized small amounts of marijuana; Representative Jared Polis of Colorado, his was the first State to legalize small amounts of marijuana; and Dana Rohrabacher of California, who is perhaps the recognized leader in the House of Representatives and in the country for reform of marijuana laws. Alaska and Oregon joined two other States, Washington and Colorado, and yes, a third, the District of Columbia, approved the legalization of marijuana in small amounts. I am going to indicate to the House how that came about because it didn't come about in the usual way. There were pressing concerns that led the District to move to decriminalize and then legalize small amounts of marijuana. In fact, the D.C. Council, upon hearing concerns about disparities in arrests and convictions based on race, had moved to decriminalize marijuana with a small fine; whereas, before, there was a penalty of up to 6 months in jail and up to a $1,000 fine. After the council passed that decriminalization law--and 18 States have decriminalized--then some residents put legalization on the November ballot. Now the people have spoken. Two-thirds of the residents of the District of Columbia say that the council did not go far enough, and they have, I think, among them a number of reasons that I will try to indicate on the floor this afternoon why they thought they had to go further. I indicated that there are and already were States that had legalized marijuana, and the Justice Department has taken the position and took it again at a hearing on the D.C. decriminalization law that the District will be treated like the States that have relaxed their marijuana laws--in our case, 2 ounces of marijuana for personal use. And the position of the Justice Department--and I will indicate later why the Justice Department has taken that position--has been that, as a matter of prosecutorial priority, the Justice Department, the U.S. attorneys of the United States are not in the business of prosecuting people who smoke small amounts of marijuana. So the District is to be treated in the same way as the States who have either decriminalized or legalized marijuana. The Justice Department is on record in a hearing saying that--and we appreciate that the District is not to be treated differently when it comes to Federal enforcement, any differently than, for example, Oregon, Colorado, and Alaska, and you don't see the Justice Department rushing forward to prosecute what will almost always be young people for possessing small amounts of marijuana. Particularly for new Members, I want to make clear that there is an anomaly here, an anachronism, because the House does still have the authority to step forward and nullify the local laws of the District of Columbia. That goes back hundreds of years, and the fact that anybody would attempt to use that authority today flies in the face of 200 years of history and democratization in our country. It is interesting to know that the Member who has stepped forward to stop D.C. thus far is a sophomore. I want to thank Members of Congress who recognize that they have the authority and who may disagree with the District but have not in fact moved to nullify local law. This really isn't where you stand on the law. It is whether you believe local jurisdictions should have what the Framers believed all should have throughout the United States, and that is the right to pass local laws without interference by the Federal Government. That is the principle at stake here. That is why we rarely have Members step forward to try to nullify a law of the District of Columbia, and I am very grateful that principle for most Members is almost always observed. Now, I want to make something very clear: I am not here this afternoon to make a case for the use of marijuana; I am here to make a case only for local control of local law. If you were to ask my preference, and obviously, I am obligated to support the laws of my local jurisdiction here, but if you were to ask my preference, I would say to you, in all candor, that I don't believe Americans should smoke anything. We know that millions of lives were lost needlessly because people didn't know about the deadly effects--I think I do not speak inaccurately when I say the ``deadly effects''--of cigarette smoking. Cigarette manufacturers are still paying the price with millions of dollars--billions of dollars that they have had to pay States in order to make up for essentially hiding information on the effects of cigarette smoking. Frankly, there is much investigation still to be done about cannabis. We certainly can't say it is good for your health, except for medical marijuana. Representative Rohrabacher yesterday spoke of a constituent whose son had come back from Iraq and had seizures and other problems emanating from his service, and no amount of medicine had done him any good. He was able to get a prescription for medical marijuana, and it controlled the problem. Yet, by the way, although there have been bills introduced, the VA could not have prescribed medical marijuana to that veteran. So I can't make the case for the underlying issue. In fact, there is evidence of harm to the brains of children. The bills that have passed the States are for adults only, people over 21. I am not even making the case for them. We need to know a lot more about marijuana, a substance that is breathed in deeply. However, I tell you this much: I cannot make a case at all for a drug conviction for smoking marijuana in small amounts. That is where it seems to me that there is increasing agreement by the American people. Just look at the latest polls. 54 percent approve legalization. I don't think they approve of legalization because they smoke cannabis; I think they approve of legalization because they don't believe people ought to be convicted of a drug offense for possessing small amounts of marijuana. There is very good news. The reason we always speak of marijuana and young people is because, apparently, people tend to outgrow the use of marijuana. As young adults leave college and become more mature, they tend to smoke very little of anything today and no longer marijuana. You don't see lots of middle-aged people talking about marijuana either. I wish I could say that their parents had outgrown alcohol, that people could outgrow alcohol, which is a legal substance that destroys lives, the lives of individuals, lives of entire families. Some become addicted to the substance, but if all you do is use it and get drunk and don't hurt anybody, then of course you are not convicted of a crime. A Member of this House, Representative Andy Harris, makes the case for nullification of the D.C. law based on harm to young people; except, of course, the law doesn't allow young people to smoke, and it is interesting to know that Representative Polis said, because it is legal in Colorado, that smoking among juveniles in Colorado has gone down. I asked why. He said it is because Colorado is wiping out the illegal market and kids have to go to that illegal market to get marijuana--and to a very illegal market to get it because some are under 21, so young people are smoking less and less in Colorado. I don't think you can make the case against freedom and liberty based on children here, where we are talking about a substance for adults, and not when the District of Columbia already has introduced a bill called the Marijuana Use Public Information Campaign, which Council Member Tommy Wells has put on a fast track for passage. I like the bill that Council Member Wells is taking through the council. It would include education forums for each ward of the city. There are eight wards. It is trying to get to people where they live, educating the public on what we do know of the impact of marijuana use and abuse. The bill requires that the Mayor report to the council on the type and the frequency and the provider and school age level of public school health education programs related to substance abuse, including marijuana use, and of course alcohol and tobacco. Again, not making the case that I cannot in honesty make, I do want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that marijuana is still classified under Schedule I, and that is the schedule for the most dangerous drugs. Marijuana is scheduled in the same category as heroin and LSD and ecstasy, even though the science we know today tells us that the addictive qualities of cannibis are nowhere near the same; worse, marijuana is scheduled above cocaine. Now, if you want to know a drug that has torn big cities and suburbs alike apart, it would be cocaine. So cannibis is more dangerous, according to the scheduling of drugs, than cocaine and methadon and OxyContin. Well, young people know that is not the case. The young people who smoke and then outgrow marijuana know that is not the case, so they don't pay any attention to the law. And as I shall indicate, the laws don't pay much attention to them because most of them do not face the possibility of conviction. They don't face conviction, and I want to emphasize this because, when you consider law enforcement, it is impossible not to recognize that State and local law enforcement officials and Federal law enforcement officials, have virtually ceased to enforce the laws that make marijuana a Schedule I drug offense--but some people do get arrested. I have already indicated that the Justice Department has said that it will not prosecute people for possession of small amounts. U.S. attorneys in Democratic and Republican administrations for years now-- there are many who have never prosecuted anyone for small amounts of marijuana. In effect, that means that marijuana is so widely used, has caused so little in the way of known harmful effects, that it is, today, de facto legal. That is why young people take the risk. If that is the case, if convictions rarely occur, let's look at what happens when arrests and convictions do occur. What led the District of Columbia to pass its law, its first law, the decriminalization law, were two studies done by outside organizations, two reputable organizations: the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the American Civil Liberties Union. They found that while Whites and Blacks use marijuana at the same rate, 9 out of 10 arrests are of African Americans. This city is half White and half Black. The people of the District of Columbia have decided that decriminalization alone would not undo this outrageous disparity. A conviction on your record for marijuana is a conviction for a schedule 1 drug offense. And it doesn't matter; the word ``drug'' is what matters. That record can sentence, for example, a young Black man or woman or young Hispanics to a lifetime of underemployment or unemployment. Indeed, if there is enough underemployment and unemployment, a drug conviction for a small amount of marijuana can lead some further to a life where drugs become, in their view, the only way to make a living at all. So for them it can be a gateway drug precisely because the marijuana arrest or conviction has simply stopped their lives. So when the council understood that 9 out of 10 arrests were of African Americans, it could not justify keeping that law on the books. And I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have now had, for 10 years, a Commission on Black Men and Boys and am cochair of a Congressional Caucus on Black Men and Boys because of issues like this that affect young men of color. Such a conviction can ruin a young man's life for work. If it makes work impossible or work possible only in the underground or the illegal economy, then it ruins his life for marriage and for children and for stability in the community. The D.C. Commission on Black Men and Boys and the Congressional Caucus on Black Men and Boys, of course, look at issues across the board, but there are serious concerns about disparities of this kind that affect men and essentially take them out of the African American community, out of the Hispanic community, and make them men apart. Marijuana use is simply one example. And again I point out, it is not that people of color use marijuana at a greater rate than their counterparts of the same age who are White. It is who gets arrested. Whether that is in the ordinary course of law enforcement, intentional or not, those are the facts. The interesting thing about the investigations by the independent organizations in the District, is that they find that these statistics showing hugely disparate treatment of people of color from other Americans on marijuana convictions and arrest are by no means confined to the District of Columbia. It is a nationwide phenomenon. If only a tiny minority are arrested and they turn out to be people of color, you have a classic case of racial discrimination. I note that I have been joined on the floor by a very good friend from Nevada (Ms. Titus). I am pleased to yield to her.

Ms. NORTON. Well, Ms. Titus, I must say I thank you for coming to the floor, but I particularly thank you and congratulate you for the extensive homework you have done educating yourself before you took a position on this issue. It is something to be emulated. I do want to say, when you spoke of the need for further investigation, and particularly when you considered how many veterans with PTSD and other ailments may benefit from medical marijuana, it is worth noting that marijuana is so sharply regulated and restricted that we have not even been able to do the studies necessary to find out what is wrong with it or what is right with it. For example, medical marijuana cries out for studies. If, in fact, the anecdotal evidence is to be believed, that in itself should lead to Federal studies by the NIH and federally funded studies. What are we afraid of? We need to know more about this substance. And on the negative side, we know that it has some harmful effects on the brain for children. We need to know more about it for adults. Why would the Federal Government not be out front, considering how widely used this substance is? If the government had done the kind of homework you had, Ms. Titus, I think we would be much further ahead. Thank you very much for coming to the floor with all of that useful information from your own study. I particularly appreciate your supporting the District's home rule and the right to pass its own local laws without Federal interference. I thought that was what both Democrats and Republicans believed. I thought that was the contention of Republicans that want to get the Federal Government even out of Federal matters. I thought they would be my natural allies to say, ``Big foot Federal Government, don't mess with any local jurisdiction.'' Yes, even here in the District of Columbia. In July, the District's marijuana decriminalization bill took effect. I should note that the District passed medical marijuana earlier with one of the strictest sets of regulations in the United States. Our council has shown it knows how to handle these issues. The threat that has been made is to use our local budget. Now, if you want to know insult on top of injury, you ask what is our local budget doing here? We are talking about $6 billion raised in the District of Columbia locally from businesses and residents. It comes here, again, because of an anomaly. Although the District got home rule 40 years ago, there was still the obligation to bring its balanced budget here, where there is no balanced budget. Well, it has resulted in shutdowns of the District of Columbia more than once. It has been responsible for the fact that the District pays a premium on Wall Street because our budget has to be passed by another body that knows nothing about our budget. And to its credit, the Appropriations Committee doesn't even have hearings on our budget because it doesn't intend to overturn our budget. But it does allow people to come forward and use the budget as a vehicle for attachments to try to nullify our local laws. It is rarely done--and I appreciate that--because Members, in their own forbearance, have tended not to do that. But we do have a threat on this bill. Now, the House did pass an amendment to block D.C.'s decriminalization bill. Representative Harris offered it in committee. And this amendment was not included, I am pleased to say, in the fiscal year 2015 short-term resolution or in the Senate's fiscal year 2015 D.C. appropriation bill. You see, there is a real difference here, and I hope that the House, in contempla- tion, will understand it also should go with liberty and freedom for the local jurisdiction. The administration has issued a statement of policy that it strongly opposes the amendment that passed the House. And it did so. And here I am quoting its words: Because it violates principles of states' rights and of District home rule. Mr. Speaker, I know that the District is not even a pioneer when it comes to marijuana decriminalization or legalization. Yet it is the District that is singled out. There has been no Federal interference. No one has come to this floor who may disagree with the notion of legalization to call down the States that have legalized or decriminalized. And I think the reason is because there is simply no principled way for Members who 100 percent believe in local control to call out the States that may have taken their own route different from the other States and the District. There is just no principled way to do anything with respect to what those States have done because those are local matters or State matters. Therefore, for the District, it is particularly painful not to be respected because the District has no vote on this floor. When the bill containing the Andy Harris amendment was passed, everybody in the House could vote on it except the Member who represents the District of Columbia, because I have no vote even on matters affecting the District of Columbia. When the Democrats controlled the House, I would have had a vote on amendments to appropriations bills because they occur in the committee of the whole, but even that was taken away. So every Member got to vote on a matter affecting only my district except the one Member that the District sends to the Congress, and that is why I come to the floor. We pay $12,000 per capita in Federal taxes. Keep that figure in mind because that is the highest per capita figure in Federal taxes paid by any jurisdiction. The lowest in Federal taxes happens to be Mississippi. I point out the difference because I think Mississippi pays about $4,000 per capita. The District pays $12,000 per capita. So you can imagine if you support the Federal Government at this rate and you have no vote on the House floor and others have a vote that could take away your laws, you perhaps have every reason to be concerned. May I ask how much time I have remaining?

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I say that there is no principled position except the American position that local jurisdictions must have complete autonomy to deal with local matters, I can offer at least one very prominent example. Senator Rand Paul was asked what he thought about the District's marijuana legalization initiative. And I want to quote him. Senator Paul said: I'm not for having the Federal Government get involved. I really haven't taken a stand on the actual legalization, but I'm against the Federal Government telling them they can't. This is a classic principled position because Senator Paul hasn't taken a position on the underlying issue. He has only taken a position consistent with his views, and what I thought were the views of my Republican and Democratic colleagues alike, that the Federal Government shouldn't tell a local jurisdiction that it can't do what is, in this case, de facto legal, because the Federal Government does not prosecute. All I am asking Members to do is to take the same principled position that Senator Paul has taken. Notwithstanding Senator Paul's position, Representative Harris has said that he will try to insert language into the omnibus bill to block legalization in D.C. Well, I am going to try to keep him from doing that. But isn't it interesting to note that Representative Harris couldn't keep his own State, Maryland, from decriminalizing marijuana, and so he hops over into my jurisdiction to do what he couldn't do in the State where he has authority. Well, we are not going to have it. Representative Rohrabacher and I disagree on any number of things. That is why I was pleased to have him stand with me. But what he said is interesting because he has the longest history of fighting for marijuana reform. I want to quote him. He called on Members of his own party to ``wake up and see where the American people are.'' Representative Rohrabacher is from conservative Orange County. He says he believes that his position on marijuana reform may have helped him to gain 5 points in the last election. He says that he thinks that GOP principles about individual liberty and limited Federal Government are completely consistent with his own views on marijuana, and certainly consistent with his own philosophy. I cite Representative Rohrabacher and Senator Rand Paul because they have taken positions that I do not believe are inconsonant with the positions of their party. People are fond of saying that this is not a partisan issue. Well, I guess it is because the parties have not come together on it. What is not a partisan issue, however, is local control of local laws. I want to note what my good friend from Nevada referred to. Representative Rohrabacher and a Democrat, Sam Farr, succeeded in passing an amendment in this House, this very Congress, that would keep the Justice Department from intervening in States that have legalized medical marijuana. This matter passed in a Republican House. The fact is that the Justice Department has indicated that it will not intervene--and it has not intervened--when it comes to medical marijuana or recreational use of medical marijuana when we are talking about small amounts. And yet the House came forward and indicated where it stands, and that is where I think the country is going and where the House is going. But there is an important issue still pending--one that this House has passed and I urge the Senate to pass, along with the Rohrabacher- Farr bill--and that is a bill that is sponsored by Representative Blumenauer and Representative Rohrabacher, who were joined at a press conference by Grover Norquist, who, of course, is the antitax advocate. Their bill passed this House. It would change Federal tax law so that State-sanctioned providers can claim deductions and credits as other businesses do. I am sorry I said that passed. This did not pass. This is pending. What did pass is an amendment that would no longer penalize financial institutions because they provide financial services to State- sanctioned marijuana operations. Now, you can imagine those operations now must deal in cash because the banks and the financial institutions are afraid to deal with them. This amendment, which is perhaps the most urgent of the reforms, did pass the House, and I think it, again, shows growing recognition of where the country is and where the House should be headed. It is worth noting that just hearing the names of the States that have decriminalized marijuana, I think, makes the case for where the country is headed. This is decriminalization alone. States that have done so, in alphabetical order, have red and blue running right through the list. I am talking decriminalizing marijuana for small amounts. They are Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. They have nothing in common except they don't convict people for possessing small amounts of marijuana. The Congress, 40 years ago, passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. That act says that matters of local law are for the District alone. It was a landmark law. We intend to have it respected. There were some exceptions. They were very small, and I can guarantee you that there were no exceptions of the kind that I have spoken about today. Legalization in the District of Columbia comes from the direct votes of two-thirds of the people in my district; therefore, it comes with a very special mandate. It comes with a mandate of freedom and liberty, and it comes with a very special mandate that the country will probably increasingly note, and that special mandate is the disparity in arrests based on race, where 9 out of 10 of the arrests are of blacks in, by the way, a progressive city. It is very hard to justify such a law remaining on the books. That is why I think the people went all the way to legalization. So what I am asking this afternoon is for House Members to remember your own States and the States of your colleagues that have taken action in one form or another to relax marijuana laws, and I am asking for all of the residents of the District of Columbia simply the same ordinary privilege. I particularly ask, not only our own Members, but Members who I think would particularly want to take note in the other body because in that body are found the Senators who represent the 23 States that have passed medical marijuana laws, the 18 States that have passed marijuana decriminalization laws, and the four States that have legalized marijuana. It is difficult for me to see how the other body, which has States which have relaxed marijuana in this way, could possibly vote not to give equal treatment to the residents of the District of Columbia. So, Mr. Speaker, at bottom, I am asking only for equality of treatment for the residents of the District of Columbia. I come in that spirit only. I don't ask for your support for the underlying matter. I ask for your support on the one issue in which I believe I can say Members in this body, to the last Member, are in agreement, and that is, since the very founding of our country, the principle that holds us together is federalism, that what happens in a State may not be what we would desire or do in our own, but if it is a local matter and if it is legal and constitutional, then it is for the people of that State. Mr. Speaker, that is the essence of freedom and democracy. I ask in that spirit for the same respect for the people of the District of Columbia that I would give to the people of every State of the Union. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, thank you to the two Democratic Representatives, Blumenauer and Polis, and Republican Representative Rohrabacher who stood with the District of Columbia for letting our marijuana reform bill stand today. Although Blacks and Whites smoke pot at the same rate, the majority of those convicted of possession of small amounts in the District of Columbia and nationwide are Black. Your State may not be counted among the 58 percent of Americans who want cannabis legalized. D.C. doesn't ask you to support marijuana. D.C. asks only that the Congress respect our local marijuana initiative, which is every bit as much a local control matter as the decision made by four other States on this very same issue.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important legislation. I am pleased to join my colleagues in support of H.R. 4194, the Government Reports Elimination Act, as amended. I also want to thank my good friend, Chairman Darrell Issa, for his bipartisan approach to this bill. This bill will bring greater efficiency to the overall government of the United States. Congress often requires reports from executive branch agencies, and these reports can be a valuable tool to scrutinize performance and assess agency goals. However, with the passage of time, reporting requirements can become outdated, unnecessary, or duplicative. Congress and the executive branch have recognized that improved coordination across the Federal Government benefits both the taxpayer and the government. In 2010, Congress passed the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act. That act requires the Office of Management and Budget to publish a list of plans or reports that are produced by the executive branch pursuant to congressional mandate. The act also requires the administration to identify potentially outdated or duplicative plans and reports, and to provide views on whether they should be eliminated. In January 2013 the Office of Management and Budget produced a list of more than 300 plans and reports that are potentially outdated or duplicative. Majority and minority staffs of our committee worked together to review this list. During this process, the views of all other committees of jurisdiction were also considered. A similar process occurred in the Senate. H.R. 4194, as amended, would eliminate the statutory requirements to prepare reports that are produced by 17 different Federal agencies. Implementing H.R. 4194 would reduce the administrative costs of these agencies by reducing the number of reports that must be prepared and printed. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that implementing the bill would save about $1 million over the next 5 years. H.R. 4194 provides for greater efficiency and a more effective Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I just wanted to join the chairman in his remarks about this bill. This bill is the quintessential efficiency bill. We have been doing the same thing over and over again until the chairman got the bright idea that maybe we should start doing this. I think we are in for more efficiency as more Federal agencies go through the same process. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill that would amend section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit tax-exempt status to professional sports leagues that promote or allow a member club or franchise connected to that league to promote the use of the term ``Redskins.'' Senator Maria Cantwell has introduced the same bill in the Senate. Currently, the National Football League (NFL) is a not-for-profit 501(c)(6) ``business league'' organization that receives tax-exempt status. It is the nation's largest sports franchise, generating almost $10 billion annually. Unlike some of its counterparts--the National Basketball Association and Major League Baseball, for example--it operates as a nonprofit, which allows for its profits to trickle down to its 32 teams, including the Washington football team. Over 300 tribes and two million Native Americans, as well as religious and human rights organizations, have called on NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and Daniel Snyder, the Washington football team owner, to change the name of the Washington football team because the name and mascot insult native people. In addition, several media outlets around the country no longer print or use the term ``Redskins'' when referring to the Washington football team because the term is offensive. On June 18, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, in a landmark decision (Blackhorse v. Pro Football, Inc.), found the name used by the Washington football team to be disparaging to Native Americans and not deserving of trademark protection, and cancelled federal trademark protection for the ``Redskins'' trademarks. While the ruling did not persuade Daniel Snyder or Roger Goodell to change the name, the ruling has the potential to affect the profits received from the sale of the team's merchandise. American taxpayers have been subsidizing a multibillion dollar league that promotes what has now been officially found to be a racial slur for profitable gain. Relief from taxes should no longer be given to a league that profits from the continued use of a racial slur, which degrades some Americans. As an organization that enjoys tax-exempt benefits, the NFL also has a duty to American taxpayers to ensure that its teams are not promoting or benefitting from a racial slur. This bill would revoke the tax-exempt status of professional sports leagues that choose to continue to use the offensive and derogatory term ``Redskins.'' Because this bill only revokes the tax-exempt status of leagues that promote the use of the term ``Redskins,'' it would not affect other leagues that fall under the same 501(c)(6) tax exemption such as the Professional Golfers Association and the National Hockey League. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Dr. William Lawson for his work as the Dean of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science at Howard University. Dr. Lawson has published over eighty-five articles, books, and other publications involving mental illness and its relationship to psychopharmacology, substance abuse and racial and ethnic issues, and is also an outspoken advocate for access to services for the severely mentally ill. Dr. Lawson received his bachelor's degree from Howard University, master's from the University of Virginia, Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of New Hampshire and his M.D. from the University of Chicago, completing his residency at Stanford University Medical Center. He has been named one of ``America's Leading Black Doctors'' by Black Enterprise Magazine, was the Andrea Delgado Honoree and Lecturer for the Black Psychiatrists of America, received the Jeanne Spurlock Award, E.Y. Williams Clinical Scholar Distinction Award from the Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Section of the National Medical Association, a Multicultural Workplace Award from the Veterans Administration for his outstanding contribution to the advancement of diversity and multicultural understanding, recognized as a national mentor by the National Alliance of the Mentally Ill, numerous awards for excellence in teaching, and state, federal, and foundation support for pharmacological research new and effective treatments. Dr. Lawson is boarded in Psychiatry and Neurology with added qualifications in Drug and Alcohol Addictions. He is also a fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, member of the Scientific Advisory Committee, National Depression and Manic Depressive Society, and on the boards of the DC Mental Health Association for the DC Alliance for the Mentally Ill. He is currently directing a $6.5 million contract with the National Institute of Mental Health Intramural Program to research Mood and Anxiety Disorders in African Americans and other minorities. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Dr. William Lawson for his extraordinary works in the field of Psychiatry.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Diane Rehm, who this week is observing 35 years in the District of Columbia at the public radio station, WAMU, where she has provided outstanding service to listeners in the District of Columbia, the national capital region, and the nation. For more than three decades, Diane has been among the nation's most prominent radio hosts. Her reputation for welcoming all sides of every issue has allowed her to attract some of the nation's most influential guests and made her program one of the most popular in radio. Diane Rehm, a native Washingtonian, began her career as an assistant producer at WAMU before becoming an award-winning journalist. In 1979, Diane became the host of WAMU's local morning talk show, ``Kaleidoscope.'' She grew the show until it was inevitably renamed ``The Diane Rehm Show,'' today with nearly 2.6 million weekly listeners across the country. Among Diane's many accomplishments are her National Humanities Medal awarded by President Obama, and her George Foster Personal Peabody Award, one of the oldest and most prestigious awards in broadcasting. Diane is also a celebrated writer, authoring three best-selling autobiographical books: Finding My Voice, Toward Commitment: A Dialogue about Marriage, and Life With Maxi. Mr. Speaker, I believe that most Members of Congress are familiar with Diane's excellence from hearing her program here in the nation's capital or at home. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending Diane Rehm for 35 years of extraordinary contributions to the nation with ``The Diane Rehm Show'' and to wish her many more years of broadcast history.