Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Courts and Public Defender Service Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments Act. The bill would make a minor change to the authorities of the District of Columbia Courts (D.C. Courts) and the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (PDS), placing these entities in the same position as their federal counterparts for more effective management and operation. This bill would give the D.C. Courts and PDS authority to offer voluntary separation incentive payments, or buyouts to their employees. Buyouts would allow the D.C. Courts and PDS to respond to their future administrative and budget needs. The sequester and other budgetary pressures are a factor in the need to offer employees who are eligible for retirement the incentive to retire. The D.C. Courts and PDS would like the flexibility to extend such offers to their employees. In particular, many of the jobs that the D.C. Courts are trying to fill require specialized skill sets and buyout authority would help to make the administration and operations of the court more effective and efficient. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has held that voluntary separation incentive payments may be made only where statutorily authorized. While federal agencies and federal courts have the statutory authority to offer buyouts, PDS and the D.C. Courts have not been expressly permitted to provide these types of payments to their employees. PDS and the D.C. Courts seek the same buyout authority in order to manage their workforce as budget conditions and needs change. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I don't know about global warming, but virtually every scientist with any expertise agrees that climate change is occurring, not just in the colder parts of the country, but all over the world. The only debate now is whether it is too late and whether we can manage it, not whether it is occurring. If the gentleman thinks it was cold in Wisconsin last winter, let us keep delaying doing anything on climate change and let's see if he will be in a position to do anything for his constituents. I remind the Speaker that every time there has been a need, the Department of Transportation has not only acted, it has acted promptly. That is what an administrative agency is for. That is why we have administrative agencies. You can't keep running to the floor where you need two Houses in order to deal with a crisis. Nevertheless, we do not oppose this legislation, but we do think it is our duty to remind the House that there is an emergency pending and that, if we go home certainly for August recess without attending to it, the bottom will fall out of the highway trust fund. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as described by my good friend and colleague, the chairman of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee, S. 2086 automatically suspends Federal Motor Carrier Safety rules for up to 90 days after a Governor of an affected State declares a state of emergency due to a shortage of residential heating fuel. Mr. Speaker, it is true that last winter there were parts of the United States which experienced extraordinarily cold temperatures and extreme winter weather. I hate to predict this, but until we do something about climate change, we are going to see these vast contrasts of the kind we have never experienced before. At that time, of course, if people are experiencing unusually cold weather, there is going to be a demand for propane and other home heating fuels. I also, of course, fully support maximum flexibility to ensure timely delivery of fuel to heat homes across the country, and certainly in a time of crisis. In fact, the House acted swiftly in March during that crisis to pass Chairman Shuster's HHEATT Act, H.R. 4076, but of course today most of the country is in the middle of a heat wave. Most of the States have their eyes looking elsewhere. They are watching the Congress to see when we will shore up the highway trust fund. They are running out of money. Already they have slowed up their investments. And of course, in a matter of just a few weeks, we will be running on empty on the highway trust fund. But I was not asked to come to the floor today to ensure that construction projects around the country employing hundreds of thousands of Americans will continue to be reimbursed so that workers can stay on the job and communities can upgrade their infrastructure. I was asked to come to the floor today to pass an exemption for home heating fuel, even though it is close to 90 degrees outside in much of the country. Last winter, during the actual time of emergency, FMCSA acted promptly to issue exemptions to allow truck drivers delivering home heating fuels to drive for additional hours to get supplies to customers as quickly as possible. Then they acted promptly to extend the exemptions after the initial 30-day period. Therefore, I must say I do not see any evidence of why this legislation is needed or warranted. Further, by automatically waiving motor carrier rules for up to 90 days, the legislation removes any safety consideration from the exemption decision. Mr. Speaker, our surface transportation system has pressing needs, as I speak, that require congressional action in the immediate term-- yesterday, perhaps. Instead, we keep coming to the floor to chip away at truck safety rules? I will not oppose the legislation under consideration, but I do believe calling up this legislation today is unnecessary and unproductive while we are staring at a deadline--and I must say, I think it is more aptly called an emergency every day--for replenishing the highway trust fund. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Jim Vance, who this week is observing 45 years in the District of Columbia at NBC4 Washington, where he has provided outstanding service to Washington, DC and the national capital region. For more than four decades, Jim Vance has been the man the Washington region turns to on their NBC4 television screens. Jim has brilliantly made himself the preeminent anchor the region can trust to get the news straight, and at the same time, he has managed to become the friend people turn to because they like him. So great are Jim's talents and captivating personality, that NBC4 owes part of its success to Jim Vance. A graduate of the historically black Cheyney University, Jim Vance was a teacher in Philadelphia before he decided to become a reporter. His first reporting jobs were at The Philadelphia Independent newspaper and at radio station WHAT-AM. Jim later accepted his first television position as a reporter for WKBS-TV in Philadelphia in 1968, and one year later, he moved to the nation's capital to be a general assignment reporter at NBC4. Jim made a fast rise to the anchor desk in 1972, where he remains to this day. Jim Vance continues to thrive in his career. He can be seen daily on News4 at 6 p.m. and News4 at 11 p.m. with his co-anchor Doreen Gentzler. As a veteran television reporter, Jim's work has taken him across the United States and to locations around the world. Jim has been the recipient of a host of honors, including 17 Emmy Awards and induction in 2007 into the National Association of Black Journalists Hall of Fame. Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress are familiar with Jim's excellence, too, here in the nation's capital. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Jim Vance for 45 years of extraordinary work as news anchor and reporter with NBC4 Washington and a favorite of the national capital region.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, as the nation's capital brings thousands of Americans to Washington, D.C. this tourist season, I rise to reintroduce the United States Commission on an Open Society with Security Act of 2014. The bill expresses an idea I began working on when the first signs of the closing of parts of our open society appeared after the Oklahoma City bombing, well before 9/11. This bill grows more urgent as an increasing variety of security measures proliferate throughout the country without any thought about the effects on common freedoms and ordinary public access, and often without guidance from the government or bona fide security experts. Take the example of government buildings. Federal building security has gotten so out of control that a tourist passing by some federal buildings cannot even get in to use the restroom or enjoy the many restaurants. The security for federal buildings has too long been unduly influenced by non-security experts, such as the administrator in federal agencies, who do not take into account actual threats and, as a result, spend taxpayer dollars on needless security procedures or insist on restricting the public without regard to risk. Another example is the District of Columbia's only public heliport, which the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) shut down following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, without explanation or means to appeal the decision. Just days after the 9/11 attacks, helicopter service was restored in New York City, the major target of the attacks. However, even twelve years after the attacks, TSA and FAA and particularly the Secret Service still will not permit commercial helicopters to fly to D.C., unlike all other cities in the U.S. The bill I reintroduce today would begin a systematic investigation that fully takes into account the importance of maintaining our democratic traditions while responding adequately to the real and substantial threat that terrorism poses. To accomplish its difficult mission, the bill authorizes a 21-member commission, with the president designating nine members and the House and Senate each designating six members, to investigate the balance that should be required between openness and security. The commission would be composed not only of military and security experts, but, for the first time at the same table, also experts from such fields as business, architecture, technology, law, city planning, art, engineering, philosophy, history, sociology, and psychology. To date, questions of security most often have been left almost exclusively to security and military experts. They are indispensable participants, but these experts should not alone resolve all the new and unprecedented issues raised by terrorism in an open society. In order to strike the security/access balance required by our democratic traditions, a diverse group of experts needs to be at the same table. For years, parts of our open society have gradually been closed down because of terrorism and the fear of terrorism, on an often ad hoc basis. Some federal buildings such as the U.S. Capitol have been able to deal with security issues, and then resume their openness to the public. Others, like the new Department of Transportation headquarters, remain mostly inaccessible to the public. These examples, drawn from the nation's capital, are replicated in public buildings throughout the United States. After 9/11, Americans expected additional and increased security adequate to protect citizens against the frightening threat of terrorism. However, in our country, people also expect their government to be committed and smart enough to undertake this awesome new responsibility without depriving them of their personal liberty. These times will long be remembered for the rise of terrorism in the world and in this country and for the unprecedented challenges it has brought. Nevertheless, we must provide ever-higher levels of security for our residents and public spaces while maintaining a free and open democratic society. What we have experienced since Oklahoma City and 9/ 11 is no ordinary threat that we expect to be over in a matter of years. The end point could be generations from now. The indeterminate nature of the threat adds to the necessity of putting aside ad hoc approaches to security developed in isolation from the goal of maintaining an open society. When we have faced unprecedented and perplexing issues in the past, we have had the good sense to investigate them deeply before moving to resolve them. Examples include the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission), the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (also known as the Silberman-Robb Commission), and the Kerner Commission, which investigated the riots that swept American cities in the 1960s and 1970s. In the aftermath of the Navy Yard shooting, I wrote to the President of the United States requesting the establishment of an independent panel to investigate issues raised by that tragedy and to evaluate how to secure federal employees who work in facilities like the Navy Yard that are a part of a residential or business community. However, this bill seeks a commission that would act not in the wake of events but before a crisis-level erosion of basic freedoms takes hold and becomes entrenched. Because global terrorism is likely to be long lasting, we cannot afford to allow the proliferation of security measures that neither require nor are subject to civilian oversight or an analysis of alternatives and repercussions on freedom and commerce. With no vehicles for leadership on issues of security and openness, we have been left to muddle through, using blunt 19th-century approaches, such as crude blockades, unsightly barriers around beautiful monuments, and other signals that our society is closing down, all without appropriate exploration of possible alternatives. The threat of terrorism to an open society is too serious to be left to ad hoc problem-solving. Such approaches are often as inadequate as they are menacing. We can do better, but only if we recognize and come to grips with the complexities associated with maintaining a society of free and open access in a world characterized by unprecedented terrorism. The place to begin is with a high-level commission of experts from a broad array of disciplines to help chart the new course that will be required to protect our people and our precious democratic institutions and traditions.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have come to the floor this afternoon to take the opportunity to fully inform Members--and, yes, also members of the public--of the actual rights of the people who live in the District of Columbia, who demand respect for their local laws the way every Member would demand respect for the local laws of her own jurisdiction, and yes, if necessary, to call out Members who violate their own principles of local control of government against Federal interference. I am very pleased that very few bills that trample on the local rights of the people who live in the Nation's Capital have been signed into law and that very few have gotten out of this House even recently. Part of that is because we stand up and fight, but we are at some disadvantage. The District of Columbia delegation consists of me, and we have no Senators. But no red-blooded American would sit down while somebody tramples over her local jurisdiction without getting up and saying something about it and, yes, without doing something about it. I want to be fair to my colleagues because some of this, I think, has to do with simple ignorance. Some of it has to do with a blind spot. The blind spot is very troubling. The blind spot means that principles that easily soak into them with respect to every single district in the United States somehow haven't made it into their hearts or their heads when it comes to the District of Columbia. It troubles me, but I believe that, when Members think about their own principles, they will think before they simply jump into the jurisdiction of another Member's district. Particularly when this happens repeatedly, we think that the constituents of the Member should be informed, and we try to inform the constituents. Indeed, we inform the entire State where the constituents are from. If a Member insists upon inserting herself into the affairs of another jurisdiction many miles from home, and if she needs to be called out, that is what we have to do. Congress 40 years ago passed the Home Rule Act of the District of Columbia. It is too bad it took that long to pass. The culprits there were Democratic and Republican, and indeed, for much of the 20th century, whether they were Democrats or Republicans. The Democrats finally got understood, and the Home Rule Act of 1973 was passed. That act gave all local affairs of the District of Columbia to the local government--to the council and the Mayor of the District of Columbia. My job is to see to it that Members remember the Home Rule Act of 1973 and do not invade the local jurisdiction of our city, Washington, D.C. I was a little troubled, although I see no real effect thus far, about a memorandum that came from David Mork--the Chief of Staff of Representative Peter Roskam, who is the chief deputy whip for the House GOP--inviting Members to insert special provisions, even of a partisan or an ideological nature, into the upcoming appropriations bills. We have checked, and, actually, we have seen very little of that so far. Our concern, of course, is with such inserts that affect the District of Columbia. By the way, it is interesting that there would be a whole memo inviting Republicans to do so. They haven't done so very much on the appropriations bills that have come through thus far, but I think that probably has a lot to do with how little policy the Republicans have been able to get through the Congress of the United States. So, when you are driven to appropriations bills for policy, you have been driven to a very low level for a lawmaker. The bait hasn't been much bitten, and I am pleased of that for the Nation. I simply want to say, if such ideological policies attached to appropriations are inappropriate for national appropriations, imagine how totally unsuitable they are for an appropriation that may affect the District of Columbia. One may wonder, what is the District of Columbia local appropriations bill doing in the Congress of the United States? Very good question. The District of Columbia wants budget autonomy-- but we haven't quite gotten there yet, and I very much appreciate that we have had Republican and Democratic support for the proposition that the $6 billion we raise in the District of Columbia is for us and us alone to say anything about. Imagine, in a Tea Party Congress, how they would react if somebody had anything to do with their local funds. Well, that is exactly how I am going to react. I am not going to stand for it. I am not going to stay quiet for it, and I am going to see that your constituents know you are meddling into somebody else's business, in violation of your own principles. It continues to happen, but it happens at far less of a rate than it used to. When I first came to Congress, I used to have to stand on the House floor for hours at a time rebutting attempts to attach to the D.C. appropriation anti-local control amendments. Those are far, far fewer. Appropriators don't like it. The appropriators simply want to get their appropriation bills done. But occasionally, some of these attachments will come through--to date, only one remains. . . . Others come through as freestanding bills. And I appreciate that the Speaker doesn't often let those bills get to the floor. But we feel quite insulted when a Member decides to introduce a bill to, essentially, erase what the local government has put into law. A favorite one of those issues that continues to apparently invite such meddlers is, of course, D.C.'s gun laws. The District of Columbia has some of the strongest gun laws in the United States. After all, we are a big city. We are the capital of the United States. Foreign dignitaries routinely are in our streets. Every Cabinet official is routinely in our restaurants, and we don't need a lot of guns in a city like this. We had an even stricter gun law. That was struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States. We believe in obeying the Supreme Court and in obeying Federal law, so the local government rewrote its local gun laws. We still have among the strictest gun safety laws in the United States, and the courts have upheld these new gun laws every time they have been attacked. They have been attacked in the courts. Our gun registration requirement was recently attacked in the courts, and the courts upheld the District's gun registration requirement. The District's ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines was attacked in the courts, and the courts upheld the District's ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Recently, somebody shot a gun outside of the White House that reached the window, the upstairs, the second-floor window of the White House. You surely wouldn't want a lot of those running around the District of Columbia, and the courts have understood that. Yet, there will be attempts to go at the city on guns. I don't care about guns in your district. I ask you not to care about guns in mine. Yet, Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio has introduced a bill that would wipe out all the gun laws of the District of Columbia. Can you imagine that? Take every last one of them and wipe them off the books. Those are local laws passed to protect our local citizens. What is he doing in this? We keep winning in court, and this Member, Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, has introduced only five bills in this Congress. He needs to think about national bills, not bills that trample on the rights of the citizens of the District of Columbia. We have made a decision, the courts have upheld our decision. I thought that is what the Framers founded the United States of America for, to allow local governments to remain local, to have a Federal Government that took care of things that were not local. This is local. The gun laws of the District of Columbia protect 650,000 people who live here and visitors who come here. They have nothing to do with Representative Jim Jordan's district. Now, to the credit of the majority, this bill has not moved. It hasn't moved in committee, and it certainly hasn't moved to the floor. But we resent that it was filed at all because it didn't have to do with anybody's district except the District of Columbia. The Member who was just on the floor, Rep Phil Gingrey of GA has introduced an interesting amendment, Representative Phil Gingrey of Georgia, expressing the sense of the Congress--now, understand a sense of the Congress measure has no legal effect. And he has, when questioned by the Court, indicated that this was ``a message bill.'' So he is a messaging bill not using his own constituents but using mine. This messaging bill says that Active Duty military personnel, in their private capacity, should be exempt from the gun safety laws of the District of Columbia, but not from any other district. For the third year in a row, I am going to get this one taken care of. Twice he introduced it as a part of the defense authorization bill, and twice I have been able to have it taken off. It got passed again in this House. I am going to get it taken off again. In this country, we respect local control. If you were to ask me which side of the aisle speaks most vociferously about local control, I will tell you that side of the aisle. So when Republicans interfere with local matters of the District of Columbia, they are in violation of some of their most threshold principles. Representative Jordan, interestingly, introduced, and I think this may not have had to do with the fact that it was the 1-year anniversary of the Newtown shooting, but that is when he introduced the bill. There were services all over the country then. I think he just introduced it because that is when he thought of it, and it was on his National Rifle Association checklist. Most recently, Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina has introduced a bill that would keep the Federal Government from deducting, as an employer, the union dues of Federal employees. It is a labor right. If you vote that your employer can deduct your dues, he can do so, private and public employer. Well, I wouldn't be on this floor if this were only a national bill. That is consistent with Representative Meadows' views. But Representative Meadows has reached into the District of Columbia. Now he says, not only Federal employees, but he is saying that the District of Columbia government cannot also deduct union dues, as the union members have asked them to, even though these employees who have asked the District to do that are paid for 100 percent by local funds. Who would take that in this House? Well, I am not going to take it. And he does so by redefining the District of Columbia to be a Federal agency. And here is the ultimate insult. Seeing that he has no right to do that, he redefines the District of Columbia as a Federal agency for purposes of this bill. Well, I am here to tell you that 650,000 people who are number one in Federal taxes paid, number one to the Federal Government, $12,000 per capita per year and they are not simply going to take that kind of treatment from individual Members of Congress. You don't redefine us. We have been defined as American citizens, and we are going to be treated that way. We are no more a part of the Federal Government than North Carolina, where Mr. Meadows is from, is a part of the Federal Government. One of the favorites is, of course, abortion. A bill to expand the Hyde amendment treated us as a part of the Federal Government. There has been a 20-week D.C. abortion ban bill. Now comes marijuana decriminalization. The House had a hearing on D.C.'s marijuana decriminalization law. I objected that there would even be a hearing. There should have been no such hearing. There had been four prior hearings--and those prior hearings had not mentioned, even the two jurisdictions, there were two of them, that had made marijuana legal, and there are about 18 that are decriminalized. The only hearing that was held was held on the decriminalization of the District of Colombia. Who will take that in this House? Well, I asked to testify, and to the credit of Mr. Mica, the chairman of the subcommittee, I was given the right to testify. When the 20-week abortion bill relating only to the District of Columbia was introduced, I was denied even the right to testify. Well, I am going to find some place to testify, even if it is on the floor of the House of Representatives because you are not going to treat the 650,000 Americans I represent as second-class citizens. You are not going to do it without protest from their Member. A Member, Representative John Fleming of Louisiana, was permitted to sit in on the D.C. marijuana decriminalization hearing. He is not even a member of the committee. It is all right with me. But the first thing he did afterward was to violate his 10th amendment principles. He went out and said, well, I know what I am going to do. I am going to try to keep this D.C. marijuana bill from becoming law. And then when we called him out on it, and the press went to him, he said, well, wait a minute. I haven't said I was going to really do it. I am really waiting to see whether I should do it. Well, I am waiting too, Representative Fleming, because you said you were going to do it because you could do it because you think you have the jurisdiction to do it. Well, you don't. Technically, of course, Congress can reach into the Home Rule Act and violate the Home Rule Act. You can do that, but who would say that was in keeping with your own 10th Amendment principles, your own principles of small government, your own principles that all that matters is local government, your own principles that the Federal Government shouldn't even be in what the Federal Government is doing? This is a controversial subject, but that is what we have local jurisdictions and States for, to respect our differences. We are a Union of States, and we are not all the same. At least 18 States also have marijuana decriminalization laws. Representative Fleming should not be interfering with a jurisdiction 1,000 miles from his own. He has introduced only 11 bills in this Congress. I have introduced 57, and none of them have interfered with anybody else's business, and I am not going to take it when you come here to interfere with mine. This is interesting. At the hearing, there was open disagreement among Republican Members in Congress because there are Republican libertarians in this Congress. Sometimes, they don't abide by their principles, but they are more likely to do so. He was called out by the Member who has since introduced the amendment to the FY 2015 COmmerce-Justice-Science Appropriations bill that passed this House, that keeps the Federal Government from interfering with medical marijuana laws that have been sanctioned by the local jurisdiction. Guess what? That passed this House with 49 Republicans voting for it. I want to say here how much I respect my Republican colleagues who try to put their principles into effect when they see such legislation, national or local; and I ask you to put yourself in my position. Should I sit still when you treat the people I represent as if you could toy with them, use them for messaging, forget that they are number one in Federal income taxes paid to support the government of the United States? I don't even have the same vote you have on this floor, and no Senators do I have. I have only myself and my will and my determination to call every one of you out, not only on this floor, but to every newspaper in your district, every newspaper in your State, all of those who sent you to Congress because you said you were for small government and local control. Well, if you are for it, I am going to hold you to it. I don't know what is going to happen with the D.C. marijuana decriminalization bill. I do know this: that I don't expect the District law, which is here now on a so-called layover--what an insult that is. We have to bring our local laws here and let them lie here and if it is a criminal law, for 60 days, to see if anybody wants to jump up and overturn our local laws. I don't think that is going to happen because I don't think there are that many hypocrites in the Congress of the United States. There was a bill--and I am not going to call out this Member's name because it was never introduced, but it was passed around for cosponsors. It was a bill that reached into something--I don't even think it was ideological--it was just meddling--that would keep the District of Columbia from using automated traffic enforcement systems. You know, they are the kind of systems we have in 521 jurisdictions, 24 States, and I don't know if this Member or his staff had gotten a ticket. He didn't say so. All I know is: What in the world are you doing interfering with how we keep people from being struck by cars? Maybe we shouldn't have those in some States. We have them in the District. The Member did not introduce it, so I am not going to call his name on this floor. I can only thank him for thinking about this bill, and I have come to ask for Members to think very carefully as to what they would do if they were in my place. You have been sent to the House of Representatives to represent your constituents. You have been sent to protect them, as well as to enable them to have whatever other people in our country have. Suppose your constituents were number one in Federal taxes paid to the government of the United States. Is there one of you anywhere who would not do as I am doing this afternoon and insist that the people you represent be treated as the fullblooded American citizens that they are? That is what we are. We intend to be treated that way, and we will never be quiet about it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Ms. NORTON. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, in July, we will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. My amendment enforces section 2000(d) of the act. It would require that no funds would be available or used to stop, investigate, detain, or arrest people on highways based on their physical appearance in violation of the Fifth and 14th Amendments and title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court, in Whren v. U.S., has found that profiling based on physical appearance on highways violates equal protection of the laws. Title VI of the 1964 act enforces the 14th Amendment and applies to funding for all Federal agencies and departments. My amendment carries out this mandate in transportation funding as well. Federal guidance regarding the use of race by Federal law enforcement agencies finds that racial profiling is not merely wrong, but is also ineffective. Not only Blacks and Hispanics are affected, but many others in our country as well, given the increasing diversity of American society. The U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that Whites are stopped at a rate of 3.6 percent, but Blacks at 9.5 percent and Hispanics at 8.8 percent, more than twice the rate of Whites. The figures are roughly the same, regardless of region or State. In Minnesota, for example, a statewide study of racial profiling found that African Americans, Hispanics, and Native American drivers were stopped and searched far more often than Whites, but contraband was found more frequently in cars where White drivers had been stopped. In Texas, where disproportionate stops and searches of African Americans and Hispanics were found to have taken place, it was also found that Whites more often were carrying contraband. Mr. Chairman, in 2005, I sponsored a transportation amendment that allowed a Federal grant to States who wanted to stop racial profiling. Nearly half of the States participated in this program. Unfortunately, it was not renewed in 2009. My amendment seeks to prevent citizens from being stopped, investigated, arrested, or detained based on their physical appearance. Considering our country's history and increasing diversity, we are late in barring profiling at the national level. At the very least, Federal taxpayers should not be compelled to subsidize the unconstitutional practice of profiling by law enforcement officials in the States.

Ms. NORTON. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to reintroduce the Lifelong Improvements in Food and Exercise (LIFE) Act, authorizing a national initiative to attack a major health problem in the United States that cannot be remedied through the health care system alone. Increasing rates of overweight and obesity are now found in Americans of every age, race, and major demographic group, and threaten the health of Americans like no other single disease or condition. In fact, the key to eliminating many of the most serious health conditions is to reduce overweight and obesity. The bill would provide $25 million to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for a coordinated national effort to reverse increasingly sedentary lifestyles and diets that are high in fat and sugar. Despite rising consciousness of this epidemic, from television shows like ``The Biggest Loser'' and ``Extreme Weight Loss'' to a steady stream of diet books, the United States has startling rates of obesity among adults and children. In 2010, the CDC National Center for Health Statistics indicated that, since 1980, the percentage of children who are overweight has more than doubled, and the percentage of adolescents has tripled. Today, the 13 million overweight children have an 80 percent chance of being overweight adults, with the health conditions that follow, such as high blood pressure, heart disease, and cancer. The CDC reports that Type 2 diabetes, considered an adult disease, is now widespread in children. The rising costs of the health care system, including insurance premiums, reflect the epidemic. The consequences for children will follow them throughout their lives if we do not act quickly and decisively. If we are serious about controlling health care costs, we must start where the most serious health conditions begin: overweight and obesity. The bill seeks to provide the first national strategy to combat the epidemic by directing the CDC to: train health professionals to recognize the signs of obesity early and to educate people concerning healthy lifestyles, such as proper nutrition and regular exercise; conduct public education campaigns about how to recognize and address overweight and obesity; and develop intervention strategies to be used in everyday life, such as in the workplace and in community settings. The legislation is the minimum necessary to address our most important health crisis. Today, chronic diseases, many of which are caused or exacerbated by overweight and obesity, account for 70 percent of all deaths in the U.S. and 60 percent of U.S. health care costs. According to the Surgeon General's Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity, the cost of obesity in the U.S. was more than $117 billion in 2000. The CDC has highlighted a study that estimates the annual cost to be $147 billion. It is estimated that between 300,000 and 400,000 deaths per year are related to obesity. A focused national health initiative is necessary because unhealthy lifestyles have become a normal part of everyday life. Participation in high school physical education classes dropped from 42 percent in 1991 to 33 percent in 2005. Changes in nutrition are equally critical because 60 percent of young people consume too much fat, a factor in the doubling of the percentage of overweight youth. Data show an increase in unhealthy eating habits for adults and no change in physical activity. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation to mobilize the country now, before entirely preventable health conditions, which often begin in childhood, overwhelm the Nation's health care system.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this afternoon to say a few words in tribute to the great Maya Angelou, who just this week died at 86 years of age. Mine will be one of, truly, millions of tributes that have begun. President Obama said of Maya that she helped generations of Americans ``find their rainbows amidst the clouds and that she inspired the rest of us to be our best selves.'' I think many would agree with that. Attorney General Holder named one of his daughters ``Maya'' after Maya Angelou. We have a charter school here in the District of Columbia named for her. She visited that school. That is the kind of woman she was. It is almost impossible to describe this life, all 86 years of it. She drew from it all that you can draw from one life. Yes, we know her, perhaps, best as a poet and as a writer and as, some would say, an autobiographer because most of her writing comes from her own life in successive memoirs, in successive autobiographies, but much of her fame came when she was middle age and beyond. Until that time, she embarked on a far-flung career wherever it would take her, dancer--yes, dancer--singer, composer, actress. She was Hollywood's first Black female director, but she was most devoted to the printed word as an essayist, as a playwright, as a poet; and that came out of her own love of books, of words. Maya Angelou was active until the end of those 86 years. When she died, she was the Reynolds Professor of American Studies at Wake Forest University in North Carolina. I will have some words later in these remarks to say about that, since I visited her there, and it was a most memorable time for me. Carol Neubauer of Southern Women Writers writes, I think, intelligently, of Maya, saying: Angelou has been recognized not only as a spokesperson for Blacks and women, but also for all people who are committed to raising the moral standards of living in the United States. That is just how broad was Maya's mission. I am very grateful that she was recognized as I believe she should have been. Well before she died, President Clinton gave Maya Angelou the National Medal of Arts, and then, President Obama gave her the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Some of us in the House are trying to give her, posthumously, the Congressional Gold Medal. It seems as if there are not enough honors that one can come forward with for a woman with so many talents and with so great a love for humanity, who kept pouring it out, so that we could partake as well, but I think we learn most from her life by understanding how hard was her early life and how she rose. It is interesting that, at President Clinton's inauguration, those lines ``And Still I Rise,'' which are from the poem she wrote for his inauguration, are best remembered--perhaps most remembered--than President Clinton's words themselves at his own inauguration. Yes, she rose. She rose from the bottom of society. She worked in places many of us couldn't conceive of. She was a shake dancer in nightclubs. She was a fry cook. She worked in hamburger joints. She worked as a dinner cook in a creole restaurant. Let me say, as someone who tasted Maya Angelou's cooking, she was a master cook. She once worked in a mechanic's shop, taking the paint off of cars with her hands, not with an instrument. She was married, and she had a son. Through all of the traditional phases of a woman's life, she managed to do many things. In San Francisco, she sang at the Purple Onion Cabaret. She toured with ``Porgy and Bess.'' In the 1950s, Maya Angelou was in the Harlem Writers Guild. That is where she first met Jimmy Baldwin, the great African American writer. That friendship was very important for the inspiration it gave her to write her own first autobiography. Don't think there could have been a civil rights struggle without Maya Angelou. Indeed, she worked directly with Dr. King, and she was the northern coordinator for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. This woman who wrote about Black people, even as she wrote about all people, would, of course, find her way to Africa, to Cairo--with her son--and to Ghana and, indeed, to working in Africa as a freelance writer, but it all began, perhaps, out of the experience at that time in her life that she had a life to write about. It took her a long time to decide to put all of these first memories into an autobiography, but when she did, it became the most memorable of her books. ``I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings'' is one of six memoirs. It was very controversial. Even though it is read to this very day and taught in schools, it was controversial because she told the truth about her early life when she was raped by her mother's boyfriend when she was about 7 years of age, about the trauma that that induced, about the 5 years when she was mute and couldn't speak--wouldn't speak--perhaps could speak, but wouldn't speak. During that time, she immersed herself in books of every variety--in the great classics and Black authors. She read. She did not speak. She took words in from great authors. She did not give her own words until she was ready to speak. A teacher brought words out of her, and not until then did she speak. ``I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings.'' That is the memoir that is most remembered and most praised. ``Gather Together in My Name'' is a memoir that begins when she is 17 and, at 17, a new mother. ``Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas'' is another of her memoirs, which tells of her tour in Europe and in Africa with ``Porgy and Bess.'' Then there was ``The Heart of a Woman.'' That was the description of Maya's acting and writing career in New York and of her work in civil rights. Then there was her book ``All God's Children Need Traveling Shoes,'' which told of her travels to west Africa and of her decision to return, this time, without the son who had gone with her to Africa. Do you notice the theme in these books? The material, every bit of it, is taken from Maya's own life and personal experiences. It has been said that a writer writes best when she writes what she knows, and Maya Angelou knew she knew best about her own rich life. This woman, who as a child spent years mute, unable to speak, became prolific and widely read. Her poetry, much of it, was substantive and about social justice. There were poems about love. There were poems about Black people. There were poems about rebellions and about the 1960s--the modern civil rights rebellion. She was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for a book of poems titled ``Just Give Me a Cool Drink of Water 'fore I Die.'' She was the first Black woman to have a screenplay. It was called ``Georgia, Georgia.'' It was produced in 1972, and she was honored with an Emmy because of her, as it was said, ``search of clear messages with easily digested meanings.'' She even adapted that first biography, ``I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,'' for a television movie that had the same name. She wrote poetry for a film called ``Poetic Justice,'' and she played a role in that film. She played a role in another television film. What a life. As you read of this life, much of which we may not have known about, you see that it is not her life as a famous woman, but her life as a woman that Maya is able to write about and get us to want to read. I had an unusual experience, oh, about 15 years ago. Essence magazine took me to Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to Maya's home, for Maya and me to have what they called a fly-on-the-wall conversation. They wanted us to talk about Black women embracing their own power. Now, how do you talk about that? With a great woman like Maya Angelou, you find a way to talk about that. Let me quote from some of what Maya Angelou said during that fly-on-the-wall conversation. Remember, this is about finding power from within, and that was the theme throughout this conversation. Maya Angelou said: A powerful sense of self involves humility, but never modesty. Modesty is a learned affectation that is very dangerous, but humility comes from within. Hear the power of those words. She goes on to say: Someone went before me, and I am here to try to make a path for someone who is yet to come. Somehow good attracts good and, in turn, you do get some external power. If you start with the power inside you, you won't abuse external power when you get it. Be prayerful that your use of it will be constructive rather than destructive. Be careful and diligent and watchful that you don't abuse power to the detriment of others who have less. This is off the top of Maya Angelou's head, you understand, these pearls of wisdom for which she became so well known, because she was a deep woman and deeply wise. At one point in the conversation, I said that the difference between Maya and me is that, though she may not speak for people in some formal sense, my God, she speaks to them. And they listen. I believe that profoundly. And her life proved it profoundly. Later on in the conversation, when we were talking about how people relate to one another, Maya said: In some cases, people say they want change. What they really want is exchange. Now, that is not necessarily progress. Maya believed in giving without asking in return. She said: Real power is like electricity. We can't see it. You can plug it into an electrical outlet, those two little holes in the wall, and light up this room. You can light up a surgery. Or, you can electrocute a person strapped in a chair. Power makes no demands. It says, ``If you're intelligent, you will use me intelligently. If you're not, you will use me with deception.'' It's up to you. Maya said: You use power according to how you acknowledge it inside of yourself. She is telling us that your execution of power is a statement about yourself. That ought to make all of us stop and think: What I am saying or doing, in the name of what power I have, to be taken as meaning who I am. She hinted, really, as to how she got the power within herself to rise and to make something of herself. She said she was in San Francisco with her mother, and she wanted to be a conductor on one of those wonderful streetcars in San Francisco. And here I am quoting Maya: So I went down to the streetcar offices, and the people just laughed at me. They wouldn't even give me an application. I came back home crying. My mother asked me, ``Why do you think they didn't give you an application?'' I said, ``Because I'm a Negro.'' She asked, ``Do you want the job?'' I said, ``Yes.'' She said, ``Go get it. I will give you the money every morning. You get down there before the secretaries are there. Take yourself a good book. Now, when lunchtime comes, don't leave until they leave. But when they leave, you go and give yourself a good lunch. But be back before the secretaries, if you really want the job.'' Three days later, said Maya Angelou, ``I was so sorry I had made that commitment, but I couldn't take it back. Those people did everything but spit on me. I took Tolstoy, I took Gorky--the heavy Russian writers--and I sat there. The secretaries would bump up against my legs as they were leaving. They stood over me. They called me every name you could imagine. Finally, I got an application. Within a month, I had a job. I was the first Black conductor on the streetcars of San Francisco. It cost me the Earth, but I got the job.'' That is Maya Angelou, not reading, just recalling. I tell you, if you could tell that story to every kid in this country who has no mother or father, who was left in poverty and hears the television talk about the income gap and how miserable things are in the Congress and the world, if that story could be told to that kid, I know of no story that could inspire such a child as that story, because it was a real story. It was real life. It was the life of Maya Angelou. My friend Maya needed every single one of her 86 years to live such a rich life--to come from utter poverty and abuse to become the Nation's renaissance woman, writer, poet, actor, dancer, screenwriter, professor, and civil rights activist. And I am here to attest, on top of all that talent, a master, magnificent cook extraordinaire. Maya found her voice early in life, and then she kept singing, kept speaking, kept telling. She found it, to be sure, after being molested as a child and immersing herself in books, as if to find words, as if to find her voice, as if, she thought that, if she read, fertilizing her own mind she would find her own voice. And she did. When she found that voice, it was one of those voices that carried. Was there ever a performance like hearing Maya Angelou read her own poetry? That voice carried across lines that typically divide people, using her poetry, using her writing. And it was poetry and writing and essays that spoke to Presidents and to poor people alike. This woman had range. Maya's life experience was so full that it kept feeding memoirs. It took six of them to tell it all. Prolific until the very end, Maya Angelou lived to become a seer, the Nation's wise woman and, I would imagine, never to be forgotten. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the 8th annual DC Latino Pride, the national capital region's celebration of our Latino lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. The Washington, DC metropolitan area has had an identifiable Latino LGBT community since the early 1960s. However, the community remained largely invisible until the first LGBT March in Washington in 1987. DC Latino Pride's parent organization, the Latino Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender History Project, began in 2000. The organization grew out of a private archive kept since 1993 by its founder, Jose Gutierrez, who, in turn, organized the first DC Latino Pride, in 2007. It has been both a pleasure and an inspiration to watch DC Latino Pride grow from a panel discussion held the day before the annual Capital Pride parade to this year's series of events between May 25 and June 5. The Latino Pride events include La Coronacion on May 25th; La Platica, a panel discussion at the Human Rights Campaign on May 29th; La Fe, a bilingual worship service with the Metropolitan Community Church Ministerio Espanol and Grupo Latino Dignidad de Washington on May 31st, and La Fiesta Latino Dance Party at Towne Danceboutique on June 5th. The Latino and Latino gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender GLBT History Project and Empoderate Youth Center of La Clinica del Pueblo jointly host DC Latino Pride and coordinate this celebration with their partners: El Zol Radio 107.9, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the DC Office of Human Rights, the Mayor's Office on Latino Affairs, the Mayor's Office of GLBT Affairs, D&P Creative Strategies, Brother Help Thyself, The DC Center, GLOV, the Raben Goup, Lambda Legal, Whitman Walker, Reasons, Verizon, Gertrude Stein Democratic Club, Latinos Ready for Hilary, Identity, and Food & Friends. This year's organizers include: David M. Perez, President; Esther Hidalgo, Vice President of Historical Archives; Jose Gutierrez, Founder & Historical Archives Co-Chair; Jorge A. Soto, Secretary; Wilmer Gutierrez, Treasurer; May Sifuentes, Finance Committee Co-Chair; Board Members Jose Plaza and Alexa Rodriguez; Jose Ramirez, Outreach Chair; Jennifer Sanchez, Outreach Committee; and Jesus ``Chuche'' Chavez, Program Coordinator. I ask the House to join me in recognizing the 8th annual DC Latino Pride, welcoming all those who will attend, and congratulating the Latino GLBT History Project's officers, board, and volunteers for work well done, and I take this opportunity to remind the celebrants that the United States citizens who reside in Washington, DC are taxed without full voting representation in Congress.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a true trail blazer, Carrye B. Brown, on the 20th anniversary of her appointment as our nation's first female and first African American U.S. Fire Administrator. A D.C. resident most of her life, Mrs. Brown used her skills and personality to work with Federal agencies, Congress and the fire service community to achieve the goal of a safer America. As a congressional staffer in 1982, Mrs. Brown successfully coordinated the effort to continue the U.S. Fire Administration after its recommended elimination. Also, Mrs. Brown was instrumental in the passage of many important pieces of legislation, including the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act, the Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of 1990, and the Fire Administration Authorization Act of 1992, which led to the establishment of the ``National Fallen Firefighters Foundation''. President William J. Clinton and a parade of witnesses testified on her behalf 20 years ago at her nomination hearing. I was proud to testify at her hearing myself to assist her in making history as the first female African American U.S. fire administrator. As U.S. Fire Administrator, her management innovations included the development of the first complete and transparent budget accountability system, and the establishment of a fair and equitable pay and promotion policy. With her extensive background as a congressional staffer, she developed strong justifications for the largest budget increase in the 25-year history of the agency. Under her strong leadership, the agency implemented the first fire safety program targeting groups at the highest risk of fire. Mrs. Brown has traveled widely to speak on women becoming successful in government, women as leaders and managers in non-traditional positions, and the joys and perils of a political appointee. After retiring from the Federal government, she worked for over a decade as a teacher and tutor for students with learning differences in Washington, D.C. Her husband Larry and herself, have three children and one grandson. Our nation is better because of Mrs. Brown. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in thanking Mrs. Carrye B. Brown for her dedicated public service and her many accomplishments.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the 10th anniversary of the Washington, DC Youth Rugby, a non-profit organization that reaches out to underserved children in the Nation's capital to promote health and physical fitness and teach valuable life skills through the sport of rugby. In 2004, members of the Washington Rugby Club started out with the goal to teach rugby to a small group of students in Northeast Washington, DC. What started with seven players and a rugby ball has evolved to over a hundred students playing rugby in the District at the youth and high school levels. Washington, DC Youth Rugby has grown from a summer-only program and is now working to implement rugby programs in DC schools. Washington, DC Youth Rugby founded a boys' team at Calvin Coolidge High School, which ran from 2009-2012. This year, the organization has started both boys' and girls' rugby teams at Bell Multicultural High School and is looking to start more programs in DC schools. They are currently working with both Washington Latin and Ballou. The program continues to be free to all children and has a diverse mix of participants, both racially and socioeconomically. This program makes a difference to the youth of our city in terms of health, self- esteem, teamwork and social skills development. In 2012, the program welcomed the support of the Honorable Kim Beazley, the Australian Ambassador to the United States, as the honorary patron. The Ambassador recognizes the value of sport in international relations and the positive impact a game like rugby can have on young people. In recognition of the 10th anniversary, the Embassy of Australia will host a celebration on Thursday, May 29, 2014. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in thanking the coaches, volunteers, donors, partner schools, students, parents, and alumni as we celebrate the 10th anniversary of Washington, DC Youth Rugby and its many accomplishments.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, once again, I am proud to join DC Black Pride, as I have since its beginnings on Banneker Field. This Memorial Day weekend, May 23th-25th, marks the 24th annual DC Black Pride celebration in Washington, D.C. DC Black Pride 2014 is a multi-day festival featuring: an opening reception; community town hall meetings; educational workshops; a poetry slam; a film festival; a church service; and performances by musicians, dancers, and other artists at the Cultural Arts/Health and Wellness Expo, the culminating event of DC Black Pride. DC Black Pride is widely considered to be one of the world's preeminent Black Pride celebrations, drawing more than 30,000 people to the nation's capital from across the United States as well as from Canada, the Caribbean, South Africa, Great Britain, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. As the very first Black Pride festival, DC Black Pride fostered the beginning of the Center for Black Equity (formerly known as the International Federation of Black Prides, Inc. and the ``Black Pride Movement,'' which now consists of 40 Black Prides on four continents. Black Lesbian and Gay Pride Day, Inc., the celebration's organizing body, chose ``I AM Pride'' as the theme for this year's celebration. This theme reflects the connectedness of the Black Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community and its commitment to fulfilling the mission of DC Black Pride, which is to increase awareness of and pride in the diversity of LGBT Blacks. Moreover, the theme expresses the resolve of the African-American LGBT community and its allies to come together to: fight for LGBT equality; celebrate its heritage and culture as members of both the Black and LGBT communities; and promote health and wellness for the community. DC Black Pride is a project of the Center for Black Equity and is coordinated by Earl D. Fowlkes, Jr. and Kenya Anthony Hutton with assistance from Andrea Woody-Macko, Robert ``Harold'' Dinkins and dozens of volunteers. I ask the House to join me in welcoming all attending the 24th annual DC Black Pride celebration in Washington, D.C., and I take this opportunity to remind the celebrants that United States citizens who reside in Washington, D.C. are taxed without full voting representation in Congress.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from New York. Her persistence has been indomitable; and without that persistence, we certainly would not be on the floor today. But I also want to thank the Majority leadership who have permitted this bill to come forward on suspension, and I particularly thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for her leadership. The remarks of the gentlewoman from Minnesota were unfortunate. You would think you were voting on a museum. My colleagues, this is not a bill for a museum. This is a bill for a commission to study whether there should be a museum and under what circumstances. It is unfortunate, indeed, to criticize a bill for a study, the outcome of which we have no idea, except for the following: The appointees to this commission will come from the leadership of this House and the minority in this House and from the leadership in the Senate and the minority in the Senate. It seems to me it would be very difficult for this bill to be converted into not a study of whether the history of women in the United States should be commemorated but a study of current women's issues that are highly controversial. To have a museum featuring controversial issues of the day flies in the face of what women's history has been about. That is for this House. That is not for a museum. There is no neglect of the issues that the gentlewoman was concerned about--pro-life issues, traditional family--where we find Democrats and Republicans on both sides of those issues. You get lots of discussion on that. But, Madam Speaker, there is almost no discussion about the history of women in our country. There are lots of things we could disagree about, but I think that almost no one will disagree that the time has come to at least study whether there should be an institution, a museum, not about women in America--and I stress, this is not a women's museum. It is about the history of women in America. The gentlewoman from New York has spoken about how distinguished that history has been. But it should come as no surprise that women were not writing the history books, and so women, like many others in our country, have not exactly been included. Yet we are half of the population. Wherever you stand on women's issues, I am sure there is consensus in this House that half of the population should not go unmentioned in the textbooks of our country, should not be unseen in the memorials and in the museums of our country, and certainly should be in the Nation's Capital. If there is to be a museum--and we don't know what the commission will find--I would surely hope it would be in the Nation's Capital, where, for the first time, women's history, historical figures who are women, would be acknowledged and perhaps commemorated. I do want to say one thing about what these commissions do. If we who desire a women's museum made any mistake, it was being so enthusiastic that we went straightforward to try to set up a museum, saw no reason why there wouldn't be unanimous consent, virtually, to have a museum about women's history in our country. That was a mistake. We should have gone the same route that many before us have gone: set up a commission to see whether you ought to have a museum at all; do it in an entirely bipartisan way so as to make sure that if you authorize a museum, it can't possibly be controversial. And that is what we have here, a fail-safe method of assuring that if you vote for this commission, you are voting for a study, and nothing more than a study. If you don't like this study, you will surely have another chance to say ``no.'' Women, Democratic and Republican, deserve a bipartisan commission to give our country, if they can agree, a nonpartisan museum in the Nation's Capital. And I thank the gentlelady from New York particularly for her hard work. This is hard work that began when the President's Commission on the Celebration of Women called for a women's museum in Washington. I remind the House that the House has voted for this museum. The Senate has voted for the museum. All that has been lacking is Senate and House votes for the museum at the same time. Today we are not voting for a museum. We ask you to vote only for a commission to study whether there should be a museum. We got so far last time as to actually find land for this museum. All of that is pulled back to put before the House today: Do you believe that the history of women in the United States of America is important enough to appoint a commission to study that history? I thank the gentlelady.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, if the point of a contempt resolution is to find out what Lois Lerner knows, what the committee wants to know, whether there was a deliberate targeting of citizens for political reasons. The fact is that the committee passed up the opportunity to learn this information. It asked her attorney: Would you tell us what she would tell us? It is called a proffer. Indeed, her attorney sent a letter to the chairman offering to provide a proffer. That is the information we want to know. This proffer would detail what Ms. Lerner would testify. Instead of accepting that proffer, the chairman went on national television and claimed that this written offer never happened. The chairman, therefore, never obtained the proffer that the attorney was willing to offer, the information which is the only reason we should be on this floor at all. When the ranking member tried to ask about it at a hearing in March, the chairman famously cut off his microphone and closed down the hearing in one of the worst examples of partisanship the committee has ever seen. The chairman did something similar when Ms. Lerner's attorney offered to have her testify with a simple one-week extension, Mr. Speaker, since the attorney had obligations out of town. Rather than accept this offer to get the committee the information that is at the bottom of this contempt matter today, the chairman went on national television and declared, inaccurately, that she would testify without the extension. Of course, that meant nothing could happen. There was no trust left. Clearly, what the committee wanted was a Fifth Amendment show hearing, in violation of Ms. Lerner's rights. They wanted a contempt citation vote. That is the political contempt citation vote scheduled today. It will never hold up in the courts of the United States of America.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues in the House to join me in recognizing Ms. Aisha Karimah, who today is observing 45 years in the District of Columbia at NBC4 Washington, where she has provided exemplary service to Washington, D.C. and the national capital region. For more than four decades, Aisha has brilliantly used her talents to help NBC4 grow and has championed our city and region and its many community campaigns--Beautiful Babies Right from the Start, Drug Free Zones, It Takes a Whole Village, Make the Right Call, Camp 4 Kids, Get Healthy 4 Life, Backpacks 4 Kids, Food 4 Families, and The NBC4 Health & Fitness Expo--we can hardly name even a representative group of community causes that Aisha has not touched. Ms. Karimah is a particularly positive and dedicated role model for African Americans and for women entering journalism and serves as a mentor and confidant to hundreds of young people. She has been a wonderful friend and guidepost to me since I was elected to Congress in 1990. As a veteran television producer, Aisha currently produces two weekly news programs: Reporters Notebook and Viewpoint. She has shared her talents by also producing programs for Howard University Television, including The Urban Health Report, Washington's Leaders and The Randall Robinson Program. Aisha is a graduate of Howard University and Wesley Theological Seminary. She is a proud and devoted mother of two sons: Donnell, a graduate of American and George Washington Universities, and Jay, a Howard University graduate who is married to Whitney, also a Howard graduate, and a cancer survivor. Aisha says her life's work has been a labor of love and a blessing, ``because only God could have taken a girl from the Lincoln Heights projects, having grown up on welfare and working at the age of 10 years old to a position where she has been able through her work to help make a positive difference in the same community in which she grew up.'' Notwithstanding serious illness, Aisha Karimah kept going at NBC4. Today, we bring Aisha Karimah from behind the scenes to let her take a bow for 45 years of beneficial contributions to the District of Columbia and the national capital region. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Ms. Aisha Karimah for an extraordinary job well beyond the call of duty for NBC4 Washington and the national capital region for 45 extraordinary years.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, 18 States and the District of Columbia have rapidly decriminalized marijuana laws, making them subject only to fines. They did so for various reasons. None of those reasons were more solid or important than the Council's decision to decriminalize D.C.'s marijuana laws. African Americans in the District of Columbia and Whites use marijuana at the same rate, but Blacks have an arrest record for possession eight times that of Whites. That's discrimination. It is the same thing when Chairman John Mica of the Government Operations Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee decides to hold a hearing on D.C.'s marijuana decriminalization law but on no others. Two prior hearings have looked at marijuana decriminalization. None has called local public officials. Be on notice. The District of Columbia insists that it not be treated any differently from the 18 States that have decriminalized marijuana and the States who have legalized it.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this afternoon because of interference in the local affairs of the District of Columbia that is about to take place pursuant to a hearing that has been called by the Government Operations Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. First, let me be clear. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee, led by Chairman Darrell Issa, has been respectful of self- government in the District of Columbia. Chairman Issa has not only observed the same self-government for our District that he insists upon for his, but he has gone beyond that to encourage greater home rule and budget autonomy for the District of Columbia. This subcommittee hearing is not done under the aegis of the full committee but, rather, under the leadership of the subcommittee chair, John Mica. The respect for local control lies at the heart of the formation of the United States of America, itself. It was the denial of that respect that led to the Revolution and to formation of the United States. Essentially, at that time, when Americans were saying taxes are a matter for local jurisdictions, it meant the United States, and when the Constitution, itself, was drawn, the Framers were at pains to separate out local matters over which the Federal Government would have no say and no control. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the House, of course, as well as the Senate, maintain some control over the District of Columbia that Congress does not have over other jurisdictions. I assert what should be clear in that illegitimate control, but at the very least, I respect and thank Members who have not gone out of their way not to violate their own principles of local government in order to exercise that control, as the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, under Chairman Issa, has been clear to avoid. In short, don't have hearings on the District of Columbia--that's for the District of Columbia City Council. The Government Operations Subcommittee has called for a hearing on Wednesday on the recently decriminalized marijuana law in the District of Columbia. It is important to note that there are Federal and State matters that are implicated in this hearing. The subcommittee has held two hearings on those implications because of the conflict between State and local law that is emerging very rapidly on marijuana possession--but look at what the subcommittee did in its two prior committee hearings: In one hearing, it called a U.S. attorney, who is a Federal official. It was a U.S. attorney from a district in Colorado and in addition, an official from the Drug Enforcement Administration. In another hearing, it called only one witness, the Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Do note that each and every one of these officials was legitimately called as a Federal official. Why was no official from the State of Colorado called? There was no State official, no local official--only a Federal official from the State of Colorado. The reason is clear: Colorado would have taken umbrage at the audacity of this body to dare call them to account on their own local laws. Be on notice that we take the same umbrage. We will not silently allow this Congress or its committees and subcommittees to interfere in our local affairs, and on this matter, we are standing on very solid ground. Eighteen States went quite ahead of the District and decriminalized their marijuana laws. ``Decriminalization'' means that a fine rather than prison results from the possession of marijuana. Twenty States proceeded to enact medical marijuana laws, which to enable people who have certain medical conditions to get medical marijuana. It took me 11 years to remove--or to get the Congress to remove--an amendment that kept the District from allowing its own citizens to have access to medical marijuana at a time when we had a runaway HIV-AIDS problem, where medical marijuana had been helpful. I was finally able to do that. Two States of the Union--Washington and Colorado--have legalized marijuana. How dare any committee or subcommittee call the District of Columbia local officials--any local official--to testify on our local law? I will get to why we enacted that law in one moment. Let me say who preceded us and who has not been called before this House or any committee or subcommittee of this House even though they have done either precisely the same thing or have gone even further than D.C. I am going to call the roll, Mr. Speaker, so you will know the company in which we find ourselves and why we insist upon treatment without discrimination, because we are the exact equivalent of other American citizens: Alaska: going back more than almost 40 years now--decriminalized marijuana. No penalty for use in one's home. Actually, that is further than decriminalization. That legalized marijuana in one's home; California: a $100 fine. Some of these are quite old, these laws. More recently, there has come a flood of marijuana laws changes. Colorado: no penalty. Of course, there are different amounts involved, and most of these involve people over 21; Connecticut: a $150 fine; Maine: as low as a $350 fine, as high as a $1,000 fine depending on the amount; Maryland, $100 fine; Massachusetts, $100 fine; Minnesota, $300 fine; Mississippi, $100 to $250 fine; Nebraska, $300 fine. That goes back to 1978, by the way. Nevada, $600 fine; New York, $100 fine; North Carolina, up to $200 fine; Ohio, $150 fine; Oregon, $650 fine; Rhode Island, $150 fine; Vermont, up to $200 in fines; and the State of Washington, no penalty for those 21 or older. What has the District of Columbia done? Its decriminalization involves a $25 fine instead of a criminal misdemeanor, penalty of up to 6 months in jail, and as much as a $1,000 fine. It also prohibits law enforcement from using the smell of marijuana as grounds for stopping and searching a resident. The reason for the low fine is that the District faced the possibility--in fact, very real possibility--that if it didn't have a low fine, it would end up with another disparity, namely, those who could afford the fine would not go to jail, and those who could not would. I want to say something about why going to jail becomes so important. First, let me quote the President, who said: Middle class kids don't get locked up for smoking pot and poor kids do. And African American kids and Latino kids are more likely to be poor and less likely to have resources and the support to avoid unduly harsh penalties. What the President said in general should be understood in particular in the District of Columbia, and I suspect in many States as well because the problem of disparity in enforcement is nationwide. The District of Columbia is a very progressive jurisdiction, and it is very racially sensitive. We have a population that is about half Black and half White, about 10 percent Latino, very progressive. And yet, in the progressive District of Columbia, African Americans are eight times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than Whites. Understand that, in the District of Columbia as across the country, Blacks and Whites use marijuana at the same rate. Why then are African Americans eight times more likely to be arrested? I can only guess. Sometimes they live in high-crime areas where there may be more police out on the street. Notice that the legislation bars arresting someone because an officer smells marijuana on the person. Of course, if that is the reason for an arrest, what you can do is take somebody in who has violated no law except possession of a small amount of marijuana--and all of the amounts we are talking about are small amounts--and what happens is that that an African American or White person or any other resident has a criminal record for the rest of his or her life. For an African American, that matters. We have a whole generation particularly of young men who, with that first arrest, are essentially ruled out of the job market because they have a ``drug possession arrest.'' That drug possession is a small amount of marijuana. That ruins that young man's life not only for work, but as the world turns, for the opportunity to have a good marriage, to raise children, and for African Americans to have a stable community, all beginning with one marijuana possession arrest. The result may be to lead this person, frankly, into a life of criminal activity. You can't get work because you have a drug possession arrest on your record. And if you can't get work and you need money, what can you do? What you often do is you go from possessing marijuana, as many young people do, to the next level, to distributing it or otherwise being involved in criminal activity. We don't have to go this way. I suspect that some of the jurisdictions that have decriminalized marijuana have done so--and you will notice they are very diverse-- simply because they are more libertarian, a bit more open to what they see around them, which is that people engage in alcohol consumption as much as they do, in smoking marijuana, at least as much. We learned the hard way that you don't put people in jail when it comes to drinking alcohol or even distributing it. I want to be clear. I do not and will never advocate the smoking of pot, don't think it is a good thing, don't think being high is fine. I also don't think drinking alcohol is a good thing, but I wouldn't want to put anybody in jail for it. If someone is unfortunate enough to develop a habit, I want to do what we do with people who develop that habit with alcohol and try to get them off that habit. Look. It is a free society. We cannot keep everybody from every sin, but we don't lock them up in the jails. That is why you find State after State opening their jails and letting out people who have been convicted of drug possession, don't want to ruin lives, particularly what amounts to young lives. We feel very deeply about this. If I may say so, I think every jurisdiction that has passed these laws feels deeply about it and would tell Congress which way to go if Congress came anywhere close to their local laws. I am not going to tell Congress which way to go. I am just going to tell Congress: Don't mess with our marijuana laws. And the reason I have to say that to the Congress is because Congress can. This hearing could be the first step toward overturning D.C.'s marijuana law. Usually when they try to overturn one of our laws, they don't give us a hearing. They just try to do it in some sneaky way. This hearing is for show. But it is a dangerous hearing because it is about a real law and real people and real racial disparity and, yes, real discrimination against my district because we have been pulled out as no other jurisdiction has been. I want to compliment those Members on the floor from the other side who were consistent with their own principles yesterday. There was a marijuana amendment on the floor yesterday, and the full details of it I don't have before me, but I recall it would allow prescription by Veterans Administration physicians for medical marijuana for certain wounded veterans because of the finding that it has a beneficial effect on some of their concerns, especially nausea and other kinds of conditions they bring back with them. The vote was divided, but I looked at the members of the subcommittee who will be hearing on Wednesday about cannibus laws in the District of Columbia. There are seven members of that subcommittee; and two Republicans on that subcommittee, that seven-Member subcommittee, voted to respect states' rights and voted, in effect, to allow States to do what is necessary when it came to medical marijuana for veterans. Yes, the parties are coming together on this issue, and for that reason it makes no sense whatsoever to have a divisive hearing that calls out one local jurisdiction--the weakest in the country because the District of Columbia has no Senators, because while I vote in committee, whatever you do to my District or even for my District, I cannot vote on it on this floor. I can tell you this. As a result of this hearing and because the D.C. decriminalization bill has to lay over here for 60 days before it becomes final, it is still here, I have alerted my allies throughout the country, and particularly in those States which have decriminalized marijuana or legalized it. So if any Member of this House ever gets oversight over this matter and dares to vote that the District can't decriminalize cannibus, even though their citizens have the opposite right, we will call them out. I don't believe that kind of hypocrisy exists in this House, nor do I know whether there is any attempt to try to overturn our laws. I have to come to the floor proactively, my friends, because Members don't exactly come to me ahead of time and tell me when they want to perform the illegitimate act of overturning a local law in the District of Columbia. So I am calling them out right now: Don't you dare to seek to countermand the elected, the democratically elected D.C. council which has decided what is best for its citizens, particularly if your own jurisdiction--and I have called your names--has decided that some form of marijuana possession decriminalization or legalization should occur in yours. Even for those of you who come from parts of the United States which have not changed their marijuana laws, let me say to you: I respect that your local jurisdictions, your State jurisdiction has not acted in that way. There are real issues here. We don't want people smoking marijuana to end up where people who smoke cigarettes did. A lot of what is being done now, the city is already holding hearings on the law's effects, is putting in place measures that would have the effect of not only alerting people to the problems of smoking anything, but keeping this matter from being excessive. Smoking pot perhaps has more of a chance of being excessive at least among young people if it is barred. I am not so sure now that it is allowed in so many States, a third of the States, that you will have nearly the excitement about smoking pot as you did before it was decriminalized. Whatever is the result is not for a national legislature, not in America where local matters get decided by local folks. Yes, there is a conflict with Federal law. That is for the Federal Government in its implementation of drug laws to take care of. And if you want to somehow go out against these States which are rapidly decriminalizing marijuana laws--you have got to come after all of them, not just one--that is what I am here to say. We don't intend to be the outlier that Congress uses to prove its point about marijuana. We demand respect for the principles for which the Constitution stands. Nothing in the Constitution says anything about respecting local control, except for the District of Columbia. The Framers left some control of D.C. matters with Congress, but certainly not the kind of control that would be exercised here. The Congress on its own decided that even the control that the Framers left in the Congress, it would never exercise, when it passed 40 years ago the Home Rule Act of the District of Columbia. The Home Rule Act says that matters of local law are for the local jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, just as they are for the local jurisdiction of each of the 50 States. That was a landmark law. We intend that it will be respected. No hearing called, however illegitimate as this hearing is, is enough to override that law and its intent. That law needs to be expanded, not sat upon with a hearing that picks out one local law. It needs to be expanded so that the 100 percent of local funds raised in the District of Columbia don't have to come before a national body before we can spend our own money, as if you were the masters of our local funds--almost $4 billion of it raised from local citizens and local businesses. You want to bring us before you on Federal funds? Be my guest. But don't come to the District of Columbia when it comes to its own money. And don't come to the District of Columbia when it comes to its own laws. Nobody in this House can speak with any credibility to the reasons, and they are legion, but don't forget the most important reason that the District decided to decriminalize its laws. It didn't even legalize marijuana, as two States have done; it decriminalized them. It is a modest step, it is a responsible step. And it is a step taken in the face of horrific evidence, shameful evidence, that showed that, essentially, the only people that got arrested in the District of Columbia for marijuana possession are Black people. That is an outrage. The council had to do something about it. Just as the other States, for whatever reasons, have decided to move for local reasons, our council has moved for entirely local reasons. We ask you to respect that move, especially when it comes to what I am sure will be countless lives of African American citizens in the District of Columbia that will now have a chance, at least, to escape from penalties of law enforcement, to live a fruitful life because they will not start off in life with marijuana possession penalties that ruin their entire lives. We ask for equality of treatment. We are equal citizens under the law. If your citizens were treated unequally, each and every Member of this House would be on this floor. I come in that spirit, and I come asking for the very same respect. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the 135th birthday of Nannie Helen Burroughs and in recognizing her many contributions to our nation, and especially the District of Columbia. Ms. Burroughs was born on May 2, 1879, and in 1975, Mayor Walter Washington declared May 10 ``Nannie Helen Burroughs Day'' in D.C. Born in Orange, Virginia, Ms. Burroughs moved to Washington with her mother when she was five years old. In 1896, Ms. Burroughs graduated with honors from M Street School, now Dunbar High School. She proceeded to make immeasurable contributions to our city and country as an educator, civil rights advocate and religious leader. Ms. Burroughs was launched onto the national scene in 1900 with her speech at the National Baptist Convention in Richmond, Virginia, ``Hindering the Women from Helping,'' about giving women a greater role in the church. Her speech led to the establishment of the Women's Convention to the National Baptist Convention and her selection as its secretary. Ms. Burroughs held this position until 1947, when she was elected president and served in that capacity until her death in 1961. Ms. Burroughs' signature achievement was the founding of the National Training School for Negro Women and Girls in the Deanwood Area of Washington, D.C. in 1909, where she served as its principal until her death in 1961. The school would later be renamed the Nannie Helen Burroughs School and remained in operation until 2013. Ms. Burroughs contributed to many other parts of the nation, including: establishing a Negro women's industrial club--the first of its kind--in Louisville, Kentucky in 1898; serving as keynote speaker at the first Baptist World Alliance Congress in London, England in 1905; establishing Woman's Day in the Baptist Church in 1907, while a member of the Nineteenth Street Baptist Church in D.C.; giving the commencement speech at Tuskegee Institute in 1934--the first woman to do so; serving on the listeners' advisory panel of the National Broadcasting Company; and giving a radio address to the nation and soldiers fighting abroad men abroad in 1943. She was also a primary force in establishing the Frederick Douglass House Museum. Most recently, in 2012, Mrs. Burroughs was posthumously awarded membership in the American Automobile Association--a benefit which had been denied in 1930. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Nannie Helen Burroughs for a life of committed service to our children. Her legacy continues to offer a powerful example for how we should conduct our lives and strive to teach the next generation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues in the House to join me in recognizing Dr. Christopher ``Chris'' Arterton, the Founding Dean of the nation's first school for professional politics, The George Washington University (GWU) Graduate School of Political Management who will be leaving his full-time post at GWU, but will remain on staff serving in a research capacity. Dr. Arterton earned his B.A. from Trinity College, his M.A. from American University and his PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Arterton is a distinguished author who has written several books on American politics and leadership. He is also a noted expert in political strategy and tactics, public opinion, and ethics and leadership in politics. His vision is to make democracy work where it is welcomed around the globe. Prior to coming to GWU, Dr. Arterton was a professor at Yale University for 10 years, teaching in both the Political Science Department and the School of Organization and Management. Additionally, Dr. Arterton played an active role at The Institute of Politics at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, having served on five faculty study groups. Dr. Arterton's research, his 20 years of teaching, and his considerable experience as a consultant on American public opinion make him an expert on the strategic environment of American political leaders, an area that encompasses the news media and communications technology generally and political strategy. Dr. Arterton continues to travel around the globe to teach about democracy. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Dr. Christopher Arterton with heartfelt congratulations on a job well done for GWU and our country.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues in the House to join me in recognizing Dr. Dennis Johnson on his retirement from the George Washington University's (GWU) Graduate School of Political Management (GSPM). Dr. Johnson has committed more than 20 years of service to the GWU campus and will truly be missed there. Dr. Johnson hails from a small town outside Merrillville, Indiana. In high school, he was very active in student government and politics. He earned his BA in International Relations from Carlton College and his Ph.D. in Political Science from Duke University. His academic and scholarly interests include campaigns and elections, the profession of political consulting, and the history of American public policy. Dr. Johnson has over 20 years of teaching and leadership experience with GWU's GSPM program. Dr. Johnson has served in multiple leadership roles with the GSPM, ending his tenure as the Director of its Legislative Affairs Program, Associate Dean, and later as its Acting Executive Director. Notably, Dr. Johnson served as a Fulbright Distinguished Lecturer at Jinan University in Guangzhou, China during the 2010-2011 academic year, where he lectured and spoke to a variety of academic, professional, and business audiences throughout China. Dr. Johnson has authored numerous books on political management and has lectured on the subject around the globe. He has had a lifetime passion for politics. In addition to his academic career, Dr. Johnson earlier served as Chief of Staff to then Congressman Norman Sisisky (D-VA). Dr. Johnson has done impressive work in advancing the cause of democracy around the globe. He epitomizes the American Dream, achieving success as a public school graduate and the first in his family to graduate from college. He earned money for his college tuition working summers in a steel mill. Coming from a small town to having had a once- in-a-lifetime opportunity to have tea with the Queen of England, Dennis has retained a sense of humility and Midwestern charm. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Dr. Dennis Johnson with sincere congratulations on a job well done for GWU and for advancing democracy around the world.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the National Day of Reason, which occurs this year on Thursday, May 1st. As I see nations around the world in turmoil, among people of different religious faiths, we are moved to deeper appreciation for the Framers, who bequeathed us the Constitution, which requires the separation of church and state. We could not have built a vast nation of extraordinary religious and ethnic diversity were it not for our tolerance of the world's great religions, all of which exist among us in our nation today, and of Americans who claim no religion. I hope that all Americans--religious, non-religious and secular alike--will join in observing the National Day of Reason, today, May 1, 2014. This day provides an opportunity to celebrate and recognize the positive impacts on humanity of reason, critical thought and the scientific method, which have always been acknowledged to be consistent with religious faith, and to reaffirm that the line between religion and government must remain indelible. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the National Day of Reason.