Eleanor Norton

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.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I just want to thank the gentleman for speaking in favor of the bill. I understand his concern. I do want to indicate that no exception is really being made in this bill. The height can go no higher than it can go right now, and somebody in the District of Columbia can't make an exception because the Congress of the United States controls heights still under this bill. Of course, we have our local zoning laws in the District, so there are many, many parts of the District where you can't begin to go as high as the Height Act. I am a third-generation Washingtonian, and I must say that I adore the residential quality of this city, which is essentially built on the notion of private homes and not large-scale apartments. The city really did not want to dislodge that, and that has not occurred here. There may still be some disagreement among residents, but I do know that when the council, which expressed some real disquiet at any change, has finally been able to come to an agreement, that there is not enough of a change here to warrant dissent within the city and had come to an agreement that--and when, in addition, those who have been most adamant about maintaining the Height Act, including the organization which has been the real guardian of the Height Act, the Committee of 100, says it has no objection to this compromise, I think we have finally reached a compromise of the kind that we would like to see more often occur right here in the House of Representatives. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 4192, and I appreciate the initiative of the chairman, Chairman Issa, who has just spoken, who has always observed the self-government rights of the District of Columbia, and puts forward this bill in the same spirit of home rule. This legislation will amend the Height Act of 1910, which limits the height of all building in the District of Columbia. The District is prohibited, under the Home Rule Act, from permitting any structure anywhere in the city in excess of the height limitations contained in the Height Act. The current law permits structures above the top story of buildings, including so-called penthouses, to exceed the height limitations, but no human occupancy is permitted in mechanical penthouses, and it gives the District the authority to set the maximum height for such structures. Currently, the structures have a height limit of 18.6 feet. The legislation will allow human occupancy of these penthouses. In addition, the legislation will mandate a 20-foot maximum height, one story, and a 1 to 1 setback for penthouses. The absolute height of any penthouse used for human occupancy will be 20 feet. I thank Chairman Issa for examining the Height Act when he saw that it had received little congressional oversight in the century of its existence. I supported Chairman Issa's request that the District of Columbia and the National Capital Planning Commission conduct a joint study of the Height Act because more than 100 years had passed since the heights of D.C. buildings were systematically discussed in the Halls of Congress. The District and the NCPC came to different conclusions as to whether or how the Height Act should be amended, but agreed with respect to removing the prohibition on human occupancy of penthouses, and setting a maximum height of 20 feet, or one story, for penthouses. The mayor and D.C. Council expressed divergent views, but I encouraged them to work together to find common ground. I am pleased that the mayor and council chairman reached an agreement with regard to penthouses, and that agreement, in essence, is before the Congress today. Under today's bill, the city, through its local zoning process, will have the home rule ability to permit human occupancy of penthouses if it would desire. However, this bill is not a mandate directing the city to make any changes to penthouses or to its existing comprehensive plan, or local zoning laws, more generally. Again, I would like to thank Chairman Issa for working to give the District of Columbia more authority. I also deeply appreciate the chairman's work in so many other ways, for budget autonomy, and his strong support on many occasions for home rule, which he has raised as a factor in connection with the Height Act as well. I support the passage of this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to rise in support of S. 994, the DATA Act. This is a landmark piece of bipartisan and bicameral legislation that will change the way the government operates. I applaud the sponsor of S. 994, Senator Mark Warner, who put a lot of passion and hard work into this legislation; as did the principal sponsor here, whom you have just heard from, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, who put considerable energy into this bill over more than one session; as well as Senate Chairman Tom Carper of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee; and House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, who worked very diligently to get us to the House floor today. The DATA Act will provide the public with information about how the government is spending money, pure and simple. This will hold agencies accountable for their spending, and it will result in a more effective government. On April 8, 2014, the Comptroller General of the United States, Gene Dodaro, testified in support of this legislation. Here is what he said: ``I think the DATA Act is one of the biggest single things that could be done in order to provide more transparency on the costs of these program activities.'' The Comptroller General went on to say that the DATA Act would ``standardize the data''--and that is the operative word, ``standardize the data''--``so that you would be able to compare data across agencies, which you can't do right now. It would also provide more consistent information and at a lower program spending level that we found to be a big obstacle in us identifying additional savings opportunities.'' The DATA Act will require the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to establish government-wide data standards. This will improve the quality of the data that agencies make available about their spending. Under this bill, spending data will be available through a single Web site. The bill will require that spending data be available for each agency and each program activity in a searchable, downloadable format. The DATA Act is a bipartisan bill across both Chambers that will improve transparency and, in turn, make government work better. I urge every Member to support this legislation. I would like, again, to express my strong support for this bill and to thank Chairman Issa for his many efforts to get it passed and through committee more than once. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, I rise in support of this important legislation. I am pleased to join my colleagues and Chairman Issa today in support of H.R. 4194, the Government Reports Elimination Act, as amended. Congress often requires reports from executive branch agencies, and these reports can be a valuable tool to scrutinize performance and assess agency goals. However, with the passage of time, reporting requirements can become outdated and unnecessary. Congress and the executive branch recognized in the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 that improved coordination across the Federal Government benefits the taxpayer and government alike. Pursuant to that act, the Office of Management and Budget publishes a list of plans or reports that are produced by the executive branch pursuant to congressional mandate. The act requires the administration to identify potentially outdated or duplicative plans and reports and provide views for their elimination. In January 2013, the Office of Management and Budget produced a list that identified over 300 congressionally-mandated plans and reports as potentially outdated or duplicative. Majority and minority staffs of our committee worked together to identify specific reports that are currently produced, but should be eliminated. H.R. 4194 would eliminate the statutory requirements to prepare reports that are produced by 18 Federal agencies. Implementing H.R. 4194 would reduce the administrative costs to these agencies by reducing the number of reports that must be prepared and printed. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing the bill reduces the costs that are subject to appropriation by about $1 million over the next 5 years. The bill contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates and would impose no costs on State, local, and tribal governments. H.R. 4194 provides for greater efficiency for a more effective Federal Government with the elimination of duplicative or unnecessary reports. Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I am pleased to yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, all this week I have come to the House floor for a very special purpose. I have offered only some of the reasons that the residents who live in the Nation's capital should have the same basic rights as other Americans. All other Americans have achieved these rights through statehood. We have tried to break down the elements of statehood into separate bills, but we have not been able to get those elements recognized by the Congress of the United States either. So, Mr. Speaker, I am making use of an important day coming up next week when Congress will be out of session. April 16 is commemorated in the District of Columbia because it is the day 152 years ago when Abraham Lincoln freed those slaves who happened to live in the Nation's capital 9 months before the national Emancipation Proclamation. This week, I have used this upcoming occasion to offer a series of remarks not only, of course, because of this historic occasion in our city but because of the meaning this occasion has to the residents of the Nation's Capital here and now, right this moment, not 152 years ago. Unlike 1862 when African Americans who happened to live in the Nation's Capital were deprived of freedom, in 2014, every American citizen of every background, of every race, of every color, of every religion, of every ethnic origin, of every sex is equally deprived of equal rights with other Americans. Other Americans, to have obtain full rights, need only be taxpaying citizens who serve in the Nation's wars. The people I represent have served in the Nation's wars since our very first war, the war that created the United States of America. And from the moment the Congress imposed Federal income taxes on the people of the United States, the people I represent have paid those taxes to support their government without a voting Member in this Congress, this House of Representatives, and with no voting Members in the Senate of the United States. I do have the vote in committee, but when matters affecting my district, in particular, or matters affecting the United States in which my jurisdiction, like other Americans, is implicated, like whether to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, where our residents have served, I have no vote on this floor. Mind you, on this floor, Congress votes on the budget raised, the local budget raised in my city, not one penny of which has been contributed by this Congress. Yet nothing is more important to Americans than the ability to pass your own local laws, to raise your own local money and say how it is to be spent without interference from the national government. No others who pay taxes, Federal income taxes--obviously, we pay local taxes--but no others who pay Federal income taxes and who have served in our armed forces are denied their basic rights in our country. This, of course, is an embarrassment to the country itself, but today it is far more serious. It is a violation of international law and a treaty that we have signed. Last month, the U.N. Human Rights Committee issued its report for 2014. Its report called our country to account on the denial of congressional voting rights in the National Legislature for the residents of the District of Columbia. In other words, the United States Government is in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That is the treaty that our country signed in 1992. The U.N. report recommended: ``Provide full voting rights for the residents of Washington, D.C.'' I would venture to say that you will not find an American citizen who does not agree that, before the Congress can impose any burden on you, you ought to have the right to raise your hand ``yea'' or ``nay.'' Moreover, this is not the first time that the United Nations has called our country to account. Earlier, in 2006, the Human Rights Committee wrote: ``The committee having taken note of the responses provided by the delegation''-- That means the United States delegation to the U.N.-- heard their responses and said: ``. . . remains concerned that the residents of the District of Columbia do not enjoy full representation in Congress, a restriction that does not seem to be compatible with article XXV of the covenant.'' And then it cited articles II, XXV, and XXVI. Article II, and I won't quote from the entire article, says: ``Adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present covenant.'' That covenant is a treaty, a treaty we signed in 1992, to which we are, by human rights and international law, bound. Article XXV says that that right includes: ``the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs directly or through freely chosen representatives.'' In our country, we do not have direct democracy. We govern through freely chosen representatives who get to vote on this floor. The residents of the District of Columbia get to choose me, but I do not get to vote even on matters affecting their local concerns. Article XXV also says: ``to have access on general terms of equality to public service in this country.'' The residents have access to public service. I serve as a Member of Congress, but they do not have that right in terms of ``equality'' because I cannot vote once I become the Member chosen to exercise that service. Moreover, notably, when my party was in power, using House rules, the District was given the right to vote on behalf of the residents of the District of Columbia on matters in the so-called Committee of the Whole. Imagine, after getting a right that is not the full right to vote on most matters in this Chamber, but when my Republican colleagues came to power, they took even that right, the right to vote in the Committee of the Whole, from the people of the District of Columbia. Is that, my friends, ``equality,'' or is it discrimination against the residents of the Nation's capital? The report refers also to article XXVI. That is worth quoting: ``All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination through the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground . . .'' Then they name some such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth--and here is the one that applies to District of Columbia residents--or other status. What is the other status of the residents of the District of Columbia? Their status is that they reside in their Nation's capital, the only Nation in the world that denies the residents of their capital the same rights that other residents in their country enjoy. Nor is there any question that there are more than enough American citizens here to be granted statehood or at least equality. Two States of the Union that have two Senators and one Representative have fewer residents than the District of Columbia. Here is one, the lowest population in the country, Wyoming. Next is Vermont. And finally, with considerably more residents, almost 650,000, the District of Columbia. We are soon going to overtake a number of other States. The District is growing, so much that there has been an attempt to raise the so- called Height Act, which limits how high buildings can be, because of the need to expand housing and office space. That attempt was turned back because residents were more concerned with the low-scale residential quality and attractiveness of their city. We are talking, Mr. Speaker, about 650,000 people, about the size of an average congressional district. Look to this chart about how rapidly the District is growing, on an average, more than 2 percent a year for more than 10 years now. In the last couple of years, it has grown by almost 2\1/2\ percent. Just compare that with growth in the United States itself. The United States population grew not by 1 percent or 2 percent, but by 0.7 percent in the last couple of years. We live in one of the most rapidly growing regions in the country. This is called the national capital region. Maryland and Virginia are the closest States. And yet the District, is growing more than 2 percent compared to Virginia, which grew only 0.9 percent, and Maryland, which grew only 0.7 percent. Mr. Speaker, during my remarks this week on the floor, this week, selected the two most basic obligations of Americans who have won statehood to test whether the District is being denied its rights. I began with taxes because I think people fret most about paying taxes-- and almost all of us have to pay taxes--not because taxes are more important. Who thinks taxes are more important, of course, is the Republican majority. They are obsessed with taxes. So you would think that they would want to do something about people who pay taxes but don't have representation. Taxes is about the only issue that the Republican majority cares about. But by ``taxes,'' they mean cutting taxes. Yet they raise taxes by imposing taxes without representation on the people of the District of Columbia. They are happy to take more than $3 billion annually out of the pockets of D.C. citizens with no vote on whether those taxes should be raised or lowered. But, the most surprising fact about taxes in our country is who, which individuals, pay the most. Well, if I were to ask our citizens, to guess, they probably wouldn't say District of Columbia residents. Let me clarify. Of the residents of the 50 States, the residents of the District of Columbia pay more Federal taxes per person than the residents of any of the 50 States. This chart shows how it goes from the highest to the lowest. The highest in the United States at almost $12,000 per person in Federal taxes annually, resident by resident, live in the District of Columbia. The lowest per capita, per person, live in the State of Mississippi. So imagine the rage--nobody wants to pay taxes--imagine the rage when you pay more taxes than anybody else and still don't have the vote on the House floor. Now, I haven't put all of the States on this poster because they could not be seen, but you see it goes from $12,000--or almost $12,000--down to as little as $4,000. The first 10 States, the top 10 States, end with California. Some of them, you might recognize if you had to guess them. The second is Connecticut. The third is New Jersey. The 10th is California at about $8,000 per person. Compare that to our almost $12,000 per person. Understand that this doesn't have to do with the size of the State's population. It has to do with the amount of taxes per person, and regardless of population size, District residents pay more. I indicated that Vermont and Wyoming were States we exceeded in population. Wyoming residents pay something close to $8,000 per person compared to our $12,000--or almost $12,000; and Vermont, also a State with fewer residents than in the District of Columbia, pays about half, something over $6,000, compared to our almost $12,000 per person in taxes. Or just randomly pick out your State. Bear in mind, we are comparing them with D.C.'s almost $12,000 per person in Federal taxes that are paying to support the Government of the United States. Nebraska is half of that, about $6,400. Take two others that are close to one another in the amounts they pay, each about $6,000-- Arizona and Indiana--compared to D.C.'s $12,000. There is Idaho. To support the Federal Government, Idaho, which pays $5,440. D.C. pays something over twice what they pay. When you get to those which pay the least--let's take the bottom two States, Louisiana at $4,500 and Mississippi at $4,200--you will see D.C. getting to paying three times what these States pay--States which have Representatives and two Senators. Yet, Mr. Speaker, of all of the obligations, perhaps the most poignant is service in the Armed Forces. For the people I represent, there has been service in the Armed Forces ever since there has been a United States of America and even before, when we were fighting in a Revolution to create the United States of America, but that service has often been disproportionate to the number of residents. Looking to the major wars of the 20th century, you get an idea of what I mean. In World War I, 635 casualties, but that was more than three States. In World War II, now, we are getting to more in casualties than four States. By the time we got to the Korean war, the District had more casualties than in eight States. So we have gone from three to four, to Korea with eight and, finally, to Vietnam with more casualties than in 10 States. The District even sometimes has had to fight to get equal respect for D.C. members of our Armed Forces. A mother wrote me when she recently went to the graduation of her son from boot camp at Naval Station Great Lakes. The family was there, glowing with honor and pride, for a son who had passed up going to college in order to serve in the United States Navy, so passionate was this kid about service. When each graduate stepped forward, the flag of the State was raised. When Seaman Jonathan Rucker stepped forward, no State flag was raised. That, my friends, was the last straw. I was immediately in touch with the White House and with the Armed Services Committees, particularly after veterans in the District of Columbia came forward with more particularly heartbreaking stories. For example, among the most serious were some veterans who spoke of no D.C. flag being displayed at ``welcome home'' ceremonies, even though the flags of other States were raised. I don't think anybody meant any disrespect to our residents serving in the Armed Forces. I just believe that, when you pay taxes without representation--when you don't have anybody in the Senate who can take care of you and when you have only a nonvoting Representative in the House, who votes in committee, but not on this floor, it is easy to be disregarded in many ways. I am very grateful to Senator Levin and the Senate Armed Services Committee and to this House and its Armed Services Committee for rectifying this serious slight to our residents, the residents who have given the most to their country. Mr. Speaker, I read an honor roll, picking out just a few of the very distinguished Washingtonians who have served in the Armed Forces because some of them stand out in the history of our country. This was a city which had racial segregation imposed on it by the Congress of the United States until the 1960s, even though, until that time, the majority of the population of the District of Columbia was not African American, but was White; yet even during that period--that period of segregation when African Americans were entering the armed services from every part of the country, the first African American Army general was born in this city, the first African American Air Force general born in this city, the first African American Naval Academy graduate born in this city, the first African American Air Force Academy graduate born in this city, and this roster continues to this very day. The first Deputy Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard is serving as I speak, Vice Admiral Manson Brown, who was born in this city; and the first African American female aviator of the D.C. National Guard, First Lt. Demetria Elosie--60, is a Washingtonian. Mr. Speaker, we know that statehood is the only way Americans have gotten full and equal rights. That, of course, is why we seek statehood, but don't think we haven't tried to get our rights in every single way we could. We also have tried piece by piece. There are pending bills before the House and the Senate now. Some contain important elements of statehood--for example budget autonomy-- that would allow our budget to go into effect, a local budget after all, once it is passed by the local legislature, the D.C. Council. Because this Congress insists that we bring our local budget to this national body, which does not fund the District, our city was almost shut down this past year when the Congress shut down the Federal Government for 16 days. That was a subject of great anguish in the District of Columbia because we were no part of that fight. We have got a balanced budget, and indeed a surplus, but because we had to bring our budget here and because Congress had not passed a single appropriation, we got shut down, too--or almost. The mayor kept the city open, and as we were running out of contingent funds, the Republican majority relented and allowed the Federal Government to open, and therefore, the District did not have to close down. I am pleased that the administration, President Obama, has put into his budget language that would grant the District control over its own budget, allowing the local budget to go into effect as soon as the D.C. City Council passes the local budget. He put that same provision in his budget last year, and the Senate appropriators passed it. I thought then that D.C. budget autonomy would become law with the budget deal, but when the budget deal came out, it left out the section that would have given the residents of the District of Columbia control over the money they, themselves, and nobody else raises. I am pleased to say that there are Members of this House on both sides of the aisle who recognize that elementary fairness lies in budget autonomy. I thank Majority Leader Eric Cantor for his support for budget autonomy. He is the second in leadership, a Republican leader of this House. I thank Chairman Darrell Issa, who is the chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over matters affecting the District of Columbia, in that he has pressed for budget autonomy even as he pressed to keep the District open when the city was almost shut down. The District also does not have complete control over its local laws. What D.C. has is a costly requirement that delays local bills for months before they can become effective, because they have to come to the Congress, although the Congress never uses this procedure called a ``layover procedure'' to overturn city laws but finds other means to do so, yet continues to impose the layover requirement of bringing every local law here to the Congress before it becomes effective. I appreciate that Senator Mark Begich, who chairs the subcommittee, and Chairman Tom Carper, who chairs the full committee with jurisdiction over matters affecting the District of Columbia in the Senate, have introduced bills that would give the District budget and legislative autonomy. Mr. Speaker, when I came to the House in the early nineties, I was able to get almost two-thirds of the Democrats to vote for statehood for the District of Columbia. It was not enough but it does show you that there were Members then and I believe people now who recognize the unfairness of the unequal status of D.C. residents I have discussed today and earlier this week. It became more difficult to make progress as the years went by, because most of my service in the Congress has been in the minority. Yet we are making progress. We were able to get the first statue representing the District of Columbia in the Capitol last year. The reason that is important is that a statue, like those of the states, was denied us because we are not yet a State. We have now been able to break through that with what is surely a symbol of statehood. And at the ceremony with majority and minority leadership, unveiling the Douglass statue, Majority Leader Reid used the occasion, with great enthusiasm, to indicate that he was cosponsoring the D.C. statehood bill. The reason that is important, Mr. Speaker, is that the Majority Leader, like the Speaker of this House, cosponsors very few bills. It says something about the importance of correcting unfairness to the District of Columbia that Majority Leader Reid not only has become a cosponsor of our D.C. statehood bill, one of 17 Senators, but that he did so with great enthusiasm and in a prominent public announcement. I am pleased that virtually the entire Democratic Senate leadership has sponsored our statehood bill. Mr. Speaker, Congress continues to deny the American citizens who live in its Nation's Capital their most basic rights. Today we have discussed how that is a violation of every American principle, and that it is even a violation of international law. Congress has failed to give D.C. residents even some of the rights associated with statehood, rights that they could give today or tomorrow even if they were not prepared to grant us statehood, the right to control our own local funds, funds we raise, funds we then turn over, at a cost of $12,000 per person, to support the government of the United States. Congress tyrannically overturns locally passed laws and keeps our local laws from going into existence until they have had an opportunity to look at them, except they don't. They just leave this costly, delay- ridden requirement in place. Congress continues to command our taxes to support the national government at a higher per capita rate than the rate paid by any other Americans while denying D.C. residents voting representation when Congress passes laws concerning those taxes or concerning any other matter affecting our country. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in the name of those who have died in the Nation's wars; in the name of the living veterans of our wars who are among the 650,000 residents of the District of Columbia today; in the name of D.C. residents who pay $12,000 per person, the highest per capita federal taxes in the country, to support the United States of America; in the name of millions ever since 1801, when the District of Columbia became the Capital, who have died in our wars without seeing the benefits of voting representation in the House and Senate and without the full and equal rights of other Americans who died alongside them, I ask this House to grant the residents of their Nation's Capital statehood. And if you fall short of statehood, at the very least, our residents are entitled to equal representation and to equal recognition, to equality under law with every other American citizen.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, while I am waiting for my posters to arrive at the rostrum, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I began this series of remarks yesterday as the District prepares for Emancipation Day on April 16, when Lincoln freed the slaves in the District of Columbia before the national Emancipation Proclamation. I began with the status of all the citizens of the District of Columbia today with ``Taxation Without Representation,'' the slogan the Founders of our Nation and the Framers of our Constitution used to start the revolution that created the United States of America itself. With those taxes should come statehood. But if there is any issue with greater command than taxation without representation for statehood for the District of Columbia, it is surely fighting and dying for one's country without representation, securing the vote for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, only to come home with no vote of your own in the Congress that sent you to war, or not coming home at all. D.C. residents fought and died in the war that created the United States of America itself, and have served in every war since, often suffering casualties well beyond those of fellow Americans, casualties that mounted in each of the major wars of the 20th century: World War I, more casualties than three States; World War II, more casualties than four States; the Korean war, by then more casualties than eight States; and the Vietnam war, more casualties than 10 States of the Union. Not only have thousands fought and died without the vote, many served with unusual distinction and many in the segregated Armed Forces, although African Americans in the District were outnumbered by Whites until recent years. Yet the District produced the first African American Army general, Benjamin O. Davis; the first African American Air Force general, Benjamin O. Davis, Jr., a graduate of West Point and commander of the Tuskegee Airmen; Wesley Davis, the first African American Naval Academy graduate; Charles Vernon Bush, the first African American Air Force Academy graduate, and the roster continues today-- today the first Deputy Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, Admiral Manson Brown, and the first female African American aviator, D.C. National Guard First Lieutenant Demetria Elosiebo. Our country continues to deny District of Columbia citizens their basic rights at home. Today, we ask that Congress draw the line on service in the Armed Forces. In the name of those who have fought or died in the Nation's wars, grant the citizens of the District of Columbia equal rights with other Americans. Grant the District of Columbia statehood in the Union.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, April 16 marks Emancipation Day in the District of Columbia, when the slaves who lived in the District of Columbia were emancipated. I come to the floor this week to discuss a different kind of emancipation. Today, I begin, as the Nation began, with taxes without representation. If I were to ask you who pays the highest taxes per capita in the United States of America, who would you say? What jurisdiction would you say? New York? Connecticut? Arizona? Texas? It would be the citizens of the Nation's Capital who support the Nation without representation in the Congress of the United States, the 650,000 citizens of the Nation's Capital. That is why you see D.C. license plates that say, ``Taxation Without Representation.'' That was not the idea of the D.C. government. It was a citizen who came forward to suggest that this should be what was on our license plates. So, April 16--we in the District commemorate Emancipation Day every year because we have the distinction of being the first jurisdiction in the United States where the slaves were emancipated 9 months before they were emancipated elsewhere. The irony is, we are now the last jurisdiction where citizens of every background do not enjoy equal rights. All other Americans have at least one voting Representative and two Senators. District of Columbia citizens have no vote on this House floor and no Senators. All other Americans govern themselves without interference from the Congress. The District of Columbia must abide the nullification of local laws if the Congress sees fit. All other Americans enjoy total control of their own taxpayer funds. The District budget, approved by and raised by District officials, must be approved in this House and in the Senate by people who had nothing to do with raising those funds. All other Americans pass any constitutional local law they see fit. All local laws of the District of Columbia must lay over here in the House to see whether somebody wants to pop up and overturn them, even if they are constitutional. What is the difference between the people I represent and the people my colleagues represent? We do not have statehood rights, and that is what any citizen who pays taxes and serves in the armed services for the Nation deserves. We seek statehood, the only way to achieve what we have sought and still seek: budget autonomy, legislative autonomy, freedom from interference into our lives by the Congress of the United States. The Nation's first principle, the principle that gave rise to revolution, is taxation without representation. How would you feel if the highest per capita taxes were paid by your citizens and they didn't have the same rights as every other citizen? District residents pay almost $12,000 per capita; the lowest are paid, and I point them out only because they are the lowest, by Mississippi, and their taxes are the lowest. I don't go through all the States because there is not room. But what is your State? New York? $8,737 per person. Compare that to our almost $12,000 per D.C. resident, and New York is a large State. California ranks 10th, $8,162 per capita compared to our $12,000 per capita, my friends, per citizen. In our country when England decided to impose taxation without representation, the colonies decided they would be colonies no more. They passed a resolution saying, ``No taxes ever have been or can be constitutionally imposed on them'' by their respective legislatures. Look at this graph; it speaks for itself, it speaks for the residents of the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a resources study to determine the suitability and feasibility of entering into public-private partnerships to operate federally owned golf courses in the District of Columbia. The three golf courses--Langston Golf Course, Rock Creek Golf Course and East Potomac Golf Course--are owned by the National Park Service (NPS). The courses have long been in desperate need of capital investment to reverse decades of deterioration and to maintain and preserve their historic features. From the time Congress created the first of the courses in the 1920s, they have been underfunded. The major reason is that NPS has continued to operate the courses under concession contracts even though concession contracts do not allow for the significant annual capital improvements necessary for golf courses. The concessions approach to operating golf courses has led to an inevitable declining state of repair. East Potomac Golf Course was built in 1920 and included three courses that accommodated all levels of play, with an 18-hole course and two 9- hole courses. East Potomac was initially segregated, with African Americans permitted to play only on Mondays. The course was desegregated in 1941 by the then-Secretary of the Interior, Harold Ickes, following pressure from an African-American women's golf club, the Wake Robin Golf Club. However, Langston Golf Course opened in 1939 as a segregated course for African-Americans, and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Langston was the home course for the Royal Golf Club and the Wake Robin Golf Club, the Nation's first clubs for African American men and women golfers, respectively. Langston, named for John Mercer Langston, the first African-American elected to Congress from Virginia in 1888, was originally a 9-hole course. Langston's expansion to an 18-hole course began in 1955, but was not completed until the mid-1980s. Rock Creek Golf Course opened in 1923 as a 9-hole course and an additional nine holes were added to it in 1926. None of the courses have been modernized, all three have fallen into disrepair, and all lack the amenities necessary to serve the public today. My bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of NPS, to conduct a special resources study to determine the suitability and feasibility of entering into public-private partnerships with a non-Federal entity or entities to operate the courses. The study would assume that one of the three golf courses will be a world-class, tournament-quality public course, with playing fees commensurate with such courses. The other two courses would be public courses of substantially similar quality to top-ranked courses owned by cities, towns, counties and states. The playing fees for these other two courses would remain the same as they are on the date of enactment of the bill, indexed annually to the Consumer Price Index. The study would also determine which course would be best suitable as the world- class, tournament-quality public course. The three courses together constitute a magnificent but underutilized public asset that could be renovated and modernized, facilitating affordable recreation, attracting significantly more golfers and generating revenue to maintain the courses. Unlike other NPS facilities, golf courses require significant, continuing capital investment for maintenance. The current fees collected from patrons at the courses, which are established in the concessions contracts, must remain affordable and therefore do not generate sufficient revenue for NPS or the concessioners to properly maintain the courses. Because the public golf courses in the Nation's capital are in such poor condition and are in need of a different and better means of operating and funding, I urge support of this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Susan Finn Brita for her more than 29 years of dedicated public service, in both the legislative and executive branches. Susan was my closest committee advisor when I came to the House in 1991 and remained invaluable counsel until she became General Services Administration (GSA) Deputy Administrator in 2010. Susan began her career in public service as Chief of Staff to then GSA Administrator Terence Golden in 1985, after earning her Master's degree in Public Administration from George Washington University. In 1992, Susan was recruited to become Staff Director for the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, a position she held for 15 years. In 2010, Susan was recruited by the Obama administration to become GSA Deputy Administrator. During her 29 years of federal service, Ms. Brita has mastered all phases of federal property management, including asset acquisition through construction, leasing, purchase, and long-term financing, repair and alterations, and surplus property disposal. She also has played a key role in the implementation of federal energy policy in federal buildings, including courthouses, as well as in the implementation of policies directed at building sustainability. Ms. Brita was heavily involved in evaluating and making recommendations to improve GSA's nationwide leasing program, reforming the GSA Courthouse Construction Program, and giving GSA the authority to redevelop and sell underutilized federal property. In addition she played pivotal roles in many projects under the jurisdiction of GSA, including the redevelopment of the Old Post Office Building, the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center, the Hotel Monaco, the Southeast Federal Center, and the West Campus of St. Elizabeths. On March 31, 2014, Susan Brita retired from the GSA. Susan's advice and counsel have been indispensable to me, to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the Congress in helping to make GSA a true partner with the private sector to construct and redevelop property across the nation, while containing cost to federal taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Susan Finn Brita for a life of committed service to the people of the United States and the federal government, and in congratulating her on her extraordinary achievements as she retires from the administration and federal service.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, in this month in which Pierre L'Enfant was hired to design the plan for the District for Columbia in 1791, I introduce a bill to direct the Joint Committee on the Library to accept a statue depicting Pierre L'Enfant from the District of Columbia and to provide for the permanent display of the statue in the United States Capitol. Pierre L'Enfant was born in France in 1754. He was an engineer and an architect, and he traveled to the United States to serve with the United States in the Revolutionary War. In March 1791, L'Enfant was hired to develop the design for the District of Columbia. L'Enfant's design for the city was so remarkable that it remains and is cherished today in the nation's capital and throughout this country. L'Enfant's design envisioned a federal and residential city with diagonal streets propelling from Congress and the President's home, beautiful boulevards on local streets and neighborhoods, and open spaces for monuments, memorials and historical structures, all of which largely remain intact, protected as a historical treasure. In 2006, the residents of the District of Columbia chose L'Enfant as one of the top ten people that have given distinguishable service to the District of Columbia and the selection committee created by the D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities chose L'Enfant as the second statute from D.C. to be placed in the United States Capitol. The District's first choice for a statute was Frederick Douglass, and I am pleased that the Douglass statue now sits in Emancipation Hall. Because the United States Capitol does not currently appropriately recognize the contributions of Pierre L'Enfant and because D.C. residents and stakeholders chose L'Enfant as a distinguishable Washingtonian, this bill would require the Joint Committee on the Library to place the Pierre L'Enfant statute in the United States Capitol. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce the Protecting Airline Passengers from Sexual Assaults Act, a bill to require the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to collect and maintain data on the number of sexual assaults that occur on commercial airplanes. At the moment, there are no real-time statistics or documentation. As a result, we cannot gain either the necessary information to prosecute these crimes or the insights to help eliminate them and improve complicated onboard sexual assault investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Passengers expect that after going through extensive security at airports that they will be safe aboard their flights, but a recent surge in reports of sexual assaults occurring on planes suggests otherwise. Those who staff flights and who may witness these crimes should have guidance as to how to proceed. Law enforcement and the flying public deserve to have access to data on sexual assaults that occur on planes so that we can work towards preventing these devastating crimes. In recent years, there has been an increase in reports of sexual assaults on flights in the United States. Oftentimes, the survivors of these crimes were asleep during part of the assault, but were so afraid and shocked that they did not call for help. In these cases, the dynamics of surviving a sexual assault are amplified. In order for the FAA and law enforcement to better gauge the extent of these horrendous crimes that have taken place on aircraft and to work towards prevention, data on the number of sexual assaults needs to be collected and shared with the public. My bill would require the FAA to establish a program to collect and maintain data on the number of sexual assaults that occur on commercial flights, including international flights and domestic flights that land or take off in the United States. Even more importantly, my bill would require the FAA to make this data available to the public on its website. Sexual assaults on airplanes are criminal acts that elude police and prosecutors more than many other crimes due to a number of factors, including fear on the part of the survivor, lack of witnesses, and a lack of education on how to respond to such acts. We need to know where the source of the surge is. This data is also very important because the public deserves to know that such incidents have happened. I urge support of this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and congratulating the Howard University Pharmacy Alumni Association on 55 years of service to the Howard University College of Pharmacy and to the profession of pharmacy. Pharmacy education is an essential part of the core curriculum at Howard University. Since its establishment, Howard University has consistently educated diverse, culturally competent and thoughtful pharmacists. In fact, one of Howard University's earliest graduates earned a Bachelor of Sciences in Pharmacy, and started the legacy of service and excellence that has defined subsequent generations of graduates. The College of Pharmacy's graduates work tirelessly to address existing and emerging health care concerns, including health care disparities along racial and economic lines. However, their call to serve extends well beyond the clinical and beyond the confines of their profession. For 55 years, the Pharmacy Alumni Association has served as one of the most effective advocates for the school and its students. Through its efforts, countless students have received scholarships and mentoring that enabled and empowered them to join this noble profession. I ask the House to join me in celebrating the Pharmacy Alumni Association's 55th anniversary, and I wish the Howard University Pharmacy Alumni Association many more years of success as they continue to provide financial and networking opportunities to the next generation of pharmacists.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce a bill to permit commercial filming and photography on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol. Currently, such filming and photography is only authorized on Union Square. The bill would permit commercial photography and filming outside of the Capitol and congressional office buildings by permit. In today's world, where many societies are facing upheavals, our country, with an exemplary model of democracy, should be the first to encourage commercial photography and filming to record various scenes of the legislature, which symbolizes U.S. democracy at work. The time is overdue to allow to commercial filming and photography of the exterior of the historic 19th century Capitol building. There is no good reason filming should be confined to Union Square. Specifically, my bill gives the Capitol Police the discretion, depending on the circumstances in and around the Capitol, to issue a permit authorizing commercial filming activity on any parcel of Federal property under the control of the Capitol Police with views of the Capitol and congressional office buildings, under the same conditions as those in Union Square. Such areas might include Independence Avenue on the House side, and Constitution Avenue on the Senate side. No policy or security reason exists to justify the limit of commercial filming and photography of the Capitol complex to only one location, Union Square, particularly considering that permits are necessary. The blanket selection of only one location for such filming raises serious First Amendment issues. People are regularly seen on East Capitol Street (east of 2nd street), where they get a full view of the Capitol building taking pictures, demonstrating how arbitrary it is to limit commercial filming to Union Square. My bill would allow commercial filming and photography from areas with views of the Capitol and congressional buildings that are under the jurisdiction of the Capitol Police, in addition to Union Square, which is located directly west of the Capitol. In addition, the Capitol Police would have the authority to charge a fee to cover any costs incurred by the Architect of the Capitol as a result of the issuance of the permit, to be deposited into the Capitol Trust Account. The Capitol Trust Account was established to accept proceeds from any fees collected for commercial filming permits for Union Square. Amounts in the Capitol Trust Account would be available without fiscal year limitation for such maintenance, improvements, and projects with respect to the Capitol grounds as the Architect of the Capitol considers appropriate, subject to the approval of the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate. Vistas of the U.S. Capitol are among America's most iconic. Limiting commercial filming and photography of the Capitol, an important vehicle for telling the nation's story, does not serve the American people. Indeed, most of the world's people know our country and revere our system of government largely through commercial photography and films of the Capitol, which symbolizes our democracy at work. Commercial films and photographs of the Capitol, the seat of our democracy, are perhaps the best modem vehicles for telling the nation's story and showcasing its democratic system of government. My bill would enable appropriate, permitted commercial filming and photography of the Capitol, and would create economic benefits for the nation, the city, and private business. I urge support of this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concern on consideration of H.R. 311. This legislation would inexplicably weaken environmental safeguards against oil spills for one specific sector of our economy, American farms. Under current law, any facility that stores certain quantities of oil is required to take precautionary steps to prevent the discharge of oil into U.S. waters. These requirements apply across the board based on the quantity of oil stored in the facility, which can range from an industrial facility to a service station to, of course, a farm. These steps, outlined in the EPA's implementation regulations, known as the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure--or SPCC--rule, require facilities put in place appropriate measures to prevent any spilled oil from entering the water, which can include both the construction of containment systems or more simplistic measures to capture small leaks. The SPCC rule also requires such facilities to have a plan in place in advance that identifies additional measures to clean up any oil that might otherwise escape such containment. These provisions generally have been in place since 1974 and have been in force for farmers since May 2013. Since that time, all farmers who fall within the guidelines of the SPCC rule should now have put in place appropriately scaled countermeasures based on the size of their facility and the likelihood of an oil spill reaching U.S. waters; yet H.R. 311 would modify the existing obligations for farmers to comply with the SPCC rule. In many instances, H.R. 311 would alleviate existing SPCC obligations for farmers to develop oil spill contingency plans, especially for those farmers that store less than 10,000 gallons of oil in above- ground containers. In summary, this bill would tell farmers that currently have these measures in place to stop taking precautionary efforts to prevent spills. Why does this legislation make this change? Is it because the oil stored on farms is less likely to spill or to pollute U.S. waters than other facilities that store oil? There is no empirical evidence in the committee record that this is the case. Is it because the oil stored on farms is any different from oil stored at other facilities? Again, the answer is likely no. The stated reason for this legislation is that these safeguards simply cost too much for American farmers, but the reality is, for many farmers, many of these costs have already taken place, especially any capital costs that might have been required for containment structures. So, in reality, many of the compliance cost concerns expressed in this bill may well be overstated, as annual compliance costs may now be reduced simply to cover periodic maintenance. Mr. Speaker, again, I have concerns with this legislation, and I hope that, as we continue to work through this issue, we will come up with a more sensible way of addressing the protection of our American farms, as well as the protection of our U.S. waters. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, DC, March 11, 2014. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: Today, March 11, the House of Representatives is scheduled to consider H.R. 311, under suspension of the rules. This bill would decrease the oversight of oil storage and safeguards against spills at locations around the country for one class of facilities without showing that they are safer than other facilities with the same volume of oil. H.R. 311 increases the amount of storage capacity that triggers various requirements under the spill prevention, control and countermeasure (SPCC) rules for any ``farm,'' defined as ``a facility on a tract of land devoted to the production of crops or raising of animals, including fish, which produced and sold, or normally would have produced and sold, $1,000 or more of agricultural products during a year.'' Consequently, more operations will be subject to weaker requirements or will be exempt altogether, as compared to the safeguards currently in place. Oil is no less harmful to waterways and the people and wildlife that depend on the nation's waters if it happens to be spilled at an agricultural operation. It is common sense that any facility located such that a spill could reasonably reach waterways and cause harm--including agricultural facilities--should take steps to prevent spills and plan to respond to those that occur. Coming so soon after the chemical and coal slurry spills in West Virginia and the coal ash spill in North Carolina, it is nothing short of astonishing that Congress would weaken protections that seek to prevent, plan for, and address spills that could contaminate drinking water supplies or harm aquatic life. The changes that H.R. 311 would impose would weaken current protections enormously. Take for instance the provisions that exempt facilities from the SPCC requirements; under H.R. 311, agri-businesses with an ``aggregate aboveground storage capacity'' of oil of 10,000 gallons or less would be exempt, compared with 1,320 gallons under current law. That provision alone is troubling, but the bill is even weaker than it appears at first blush, as it would also change the threshold for storage containers that can be ignored in the calculation of aboveground storage capacity from 55 gallons to 1,320 gallons, so long as a facility has not had a history of spills. That would allow covered operations to avoid the SPCC planning and prevention requirements entirely by having an unlimited number of 1,319-gallon tanks on site. Agri-business operations already have been given significant flexibility in meeting the SPCC requirements. They have had an extended period of time to comply with changes to the applicable provisions; other facilities have been subject to these requirements since 2010 or 2011, whereas agri-businesses with the requisite oil storage capacity were due to comply in May, 2013. Section 1416 of the March, 2013 continuing resolution, Public Law 113-6, later prohibited the use of funds to enforce this requirement until September, 2013. The rules also provide flexibility in developing plans for certain operations with smaller storage volumes and a good history with respect to spills. And EPA provided for individual extensions of the deadline under some circumstances. Given that the deadline has now passed for farms, it is hard to understand what H.R. 311 would accomplish, aside from allowing newly-exempt operators to ignore the plans and procedures they have already developed, and rewarding those facilities that did not comply with the rules on time. Congress should not gamble the nation's water resources for the sake of one industry. Please maintain sensible safeguards against oil spills and oppose H.R. 311. Sincerely, Scott Slesinger, Legislative Director, Natural Resources Defense Council.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce an important bill for the administration of justice in the District of Columbia. The bill would make minor, technical changes to the authorities of the District of Columbia Courts (Courts), the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (PDS) and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA), placing these entities in the same position as their federal counterparts for more effective management and operation. This bill would allow the Courts to collect debts owed to it by its employees (e.g., debts from loss or damage to property, improper credit card payments, erroneous payments to employees). The Executive Officer of the Courts would have to provide employees with at least 30 days' written notice regarding the debt collection, and employees would have the right to a hearing conducted by an independent officer. The bill would also give the Courts the authority to purchase uniforms to ensure the safety of its building engineers, facilities maintenance workers and mail personnel. These service employees must regularly access buildings run by the Courts at all hours. The increase in the number of security incidents in courthouses throughout the country and the location of the Courts in the nation's capital require visual security and uniformity of staff to help ensure that unauthorized persons do not enter secure areas. The bill would expressly allow PDS to accept and use public grants, voluntary and uncompensated services, such as unpaid law clerks and interns, and private contributions made to advance PDS's work. It would also allow PDS board members to be treated as PDS employees for purposes of liability. Apparently, a drafting oversight in the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 makes PDS's volunteer board of trustees District of Columbia employees for purposes of any action brought against board members. This bill would rectify this oversight. Finally, the bill would allow CSOSA to develop and implement incentive-based programming to accompany its current sanction policies. Combining both sanctions and incentives has been proven to be more effective in improving compliance with supervision. The bill also would authorize CSOSA to solicit, receive and use gifts for the purpose of advancing its work, and would require the Director to keep detailed records on the use of CSOSA's gift authority. It would also permit the Director to enter into cost-reimbursable agreements with the D.C. government for space or services provided. The D.C. government is a frequent partner of CSOSA due to its location in D.C. and CSOSA's mandate to assist in the reintegration of D.C. code offenders into society. Giving CSOSA the authority to enter into reimbursable agreements with the District is necessary to assist CSOSA in its daily work. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill to require the Library of Congress (LOC) to install the District of Columbia seal in the Main Reading Room of the Thomas Jefferson Building of the LOC. The bill calls on the Library of Congress to take the appropriate action to depict the seal of the District of Columbia on the stained-glass windows in the Main Reading Room, where the seals of the states are depicted. Currently, the stained-glass windows contain the seals of all states and territories that existed when the building was constructed, except for the seal of the District of Columbia, whose seal was readily available at the time and should have been depicted. This omission was brought to my attention by a District resident, Luis Landau, a former docent at the Library. We are asking that this omission be corrected at the earliest time. In addition to the omission of the District of Columbia, the only currently unrepresented states from the stained-glass display are Hawaii and Alaska, but they were not states or territories when the building was constructed. The fact that these two states were not part of the Union at the time of the creation of the stained-glass windows argues for a depiction of the District seal as well, which, after all, was in fact the nation's capital at the time. The residents of the District of Columbia have always had all the obligations of American citizenship, including paying federal taxes and service in all the nation's wars, including the War of 1812, during which the Capitol building, which then housed the Library of Congress, was burned, prompting construction of the current Library of Congress building with the state and territory seals. It is, therefore, without question that the District and its residents should receive equal treatment among the stained-glass windows that portray the history of the United States. D.C. residents deserve to have their history and American citizenship recognized. There is existing evidence that the seal of the District of Columbia should have been depicted. The Members of Congress room in the Jefferson Building, which is not open to the public, has a painted depiction of the D.C. seal, along with state seals, on its ceiling. This precedent reinforces our request to be represented among the stained-glass windows in the Main Reading Room, which is open to the public. There is no reason why the D.C. seal cannot be added with the planned restoration of the stained-glass. The right time to add the seal of the District of Columbia, whose residents pay full taxes and have served in all the nation's wars, like the residents of the 50 states, would be during the planned restoration. Congress already automatically includes the District of Columbia and its residents, or has corrected the omission of the District of Columbia, when honoring the states. For example, the District of Columbia War Memorial honors District residents who served in World War I, the World War II Memorial includes a column representing the District of Columbia, the flag of the District of Columbia is displayed among the flags of the fifty states in the tunnel connecting the House office buildings to the Capitol, and D.C.'s Frederick Douglass statue now sits in the Capitol alongside the statues from the 50 states. In January of last year, the President signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which contains language requiring the armed services to display the District of Columbia flag whenever the flags of the states are displayed. Legislation was also enacted to give D.C. a coin after it was omitted from legislation creating coins for the 50 states. I also successfully worked with the U.S. Postal Service to create a D.C. stamp, like the stamps for the 50 states, and worked with the National Park Service to add the D.C. flag alongside the state flags. Inclusion of the D.C. seal, along with the seals of the states, is the next step. I urge support of this legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Promoting National Service and Reducing Unemployment Act, to address one of the greatest workforce tragedies resulting from today's economy--our unemployed young people--and to spur economic growth and alleviate strain on state and local governments. This tragedy is not only hurting our young people, it is costing our government $25 billion each year through lost tax revenue and other costs. While over 10.4 million Americans are unemployed, my bill targets the 3.8 million young people who have not had a fair chance to ever use their high school and college education, which this nation has strongly urged them to get. What is particularly disappointing is the high unemployment rate for young people who heeded our advice to graduate from high school and college, only to try to enter the workforce in the worst economy in generations. The total unemployment rate was 7.3 percent compared to 16.3 percent for young adults aged 16 to 24 even during the recent summer. Hundreds of thousands now compete for unpaid internships wherever they can find them. By significantly expanding AmeriCorps, my bill, without needing a new administrative structure or bureaucracy, would allow unemployed young people to earn a stipend sufficient to support themselves and to obtain work experience and secure a good work history to help them obtain future employment. The net cost of the expansion would be low, because these young people would be providing urgently needed local services that are being dropped or curtailed because of federal, state, and local budget cuts, such as after-school programs, tutoring, and assistance for the elderly. The bill would significantly expand job opportunities for young people who have played by the rules but find themselves unemployed in this economy. It would increase the number of participants in the AmeriCorps State and National program from approximately 78,000 to 500,000 full-time participants. Participants receive a living allowance, which most find sufficient to meet their basic needs, and are also eligible for an education award equal to the value of a Pell grant, for school-loan forbearance, health care benefits and child care assistance. By expanding the program, we would reduce the number of unemployed young people, provide them with the work skills and experience they would not get while unemployed, and help cash-strapped states and local governments provide services that they would otherwise have to cut. For some time, it has been clear that policies to address today's unusually stubborn unemployment need to be targeted in order to be effective. Without significant targeting, young graduates will continue to face their first years as adults without jobs and with no way to acquire work experience. They deserve better. I ask my colleagues to support this urgently needed targeted assistance for young, unemployed Americans.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate the birthday of Frederick Douglass, I introduce a bill that would establish a Bicentennial Commission to study ways that the Federal Government might honor and celebrate the life of Douglass during the bicentennial anniversary of his birth in 2018. Frederick Douglass was born into slavery in 1818 on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. He learned basic reading skills from his mistress and continued to teach himself and other slaves to read and write despite the risks he faced, including death. After two attempts, Douglass successfully escaped from slavery to New York and became an anti- slavery lecturer and abolitionist. He went on to serve in several administrations, including as a close advisor to President Abraham Lincoln, U.S. Marshal of the District of Columbia under President Rutherford B. Hayes and District of Columbia Recorder of Deeds under President James Garfield. In 1889, President Benjamin Harrison appointed Frederick Douglass to be the U.S. minister to Haiti. He was later appointed by President Ulysses S. Grant to serve as secretary of the commission of Santo Domingo. Douglass dedicated his life to achieving justice for all Americans. He lived in the District of Columbia for 23 of his 57 years as a free man and was deeply committed to obtaining equal congressional voting and self-government rights for District of Columbia residents. His home, Cedar Hill, was established as a National Historic Site, in Anacostia in Southeast Washington, DC and his statue in the U.S. Capitol is a gift from the almost 650,000 American citizens of the District of Columbia. My bill would simply establish a commission to examine ways the Federal Government can honor Douglass during the bicentennial anniversary of his birth, including the issuance of a Frederick Douglass bicentennial postage stamp, the convening of a joint meeting or joint session of Congress for ceremonies and activities relating to Frederick Douglass, a rededication of the Frederick Douglass National Historic Site, and the acquisition and preservation of artifacts associated with Frederick Douglass. The Commission would report its findings and recommendations to Congress. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, as we commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, my colleagues Representatives Donna Edwards, Jim Moran and Frank Wolf join me to introduce a bill to recognize and preserve the Civil War Defenses of Washington located in the District of Columbia, Virginia and Maryland. The defenses of Washington, including forts, unarmed batteries and rifle trenches, created a ring of protection for the nation's capital during the Civil War. This bill would redesignate the 22 Civil War Defenses of Washington currently under National Park Service jurisdiction as a national historical park, and allow other sites associated with the Civil War Defenses of Washington that are owned by a unit of local government in Maryland, Virginia, or the District of Columbia to be affiliated with the national historic park through cooperative agreements. This bill would also require the Secretary of the Interior to facilitate the storied history of the Civil War for both the North and the South, including the history of the defenses of Washington and the Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864, being assembled, arrayed and conveyed for the benefit of the public for the knowledge, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The Civil War Defenses of Washington were constructed at the beginning of the war, in 1861, as a ring of protection for the nation's capital and for President Abraham Lincoln. By the end of the war, these defenses included 68 forts, 93 unarmed batteries, 807 mounted cannons, 13 miles of rifle trenches, and 32 miles of military roads. The major test of the Civil War Defenses of Washington came with the Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864, when Confederate Lieutenant General Jubal Early, directed by General Robert E. Lee, sought to attack the nation's capital from the north, causing Union Forces threatening to attack Richmond, the capital of the Confederacy, to be withdrawn. General Early was delayed by Union Major General Lew Wallace at the Battle of Monocacy on July 9, 1864, and was stopped at the northern edge of Washington at the Battle of Fort Stevens on July 11-12, 1864. The Shenandoah Valley Campaign ended when Union Lieutenant General Philip Sheridan defeated General Early at the Battle of Cedar Creek, Virginia, on October 19, 1864. Nearly all the individual forts in the Civil Defenses of Washington-- on both sides of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers--were involved in stopping General Early's attack, and the Battle of Fort Stevens was the second and last attempt by the Confederate Army to attack Washington. Taken together, these battles were pivotal to the outcome of the war and the freedom and democracy that the war represented for this country. It is therefore fitting that we recognize these sites by redesignating them as a national historic park as we commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Civil War. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I appreciate the opportunity to speak, particularly since I was denied the courtesy of speaking on this bill, which targets my own district. Madam Speaker, the only thing worse than targeting the reproductive health of the Nation's women is reaching beyond that to do even greater damage to the women of a local jurisdiction--to permanently keep the District of Columbia from spending its own local funds on abortion services for poor women, as 17 States do. Among them are Alaska, Arizona, and Montana, hardly bastions of liberalism. Mind you, such spending is already barred in the annual D.C. appropriations bill. Yet H.R. 7 strips--imagine this--strips the District of Columbia of its very identity for purposes of abortion by deeming the District of Columbia government to be part of the Federal Government. What an indignity. Republicans captured the majority in the name of local control and devolving Federal power to the States and localities. Today, you turn your own principles on their heads to snatch power from a local jurisdiction. We will insist that Republicans practice what they preach.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor two Clerk of the House employees, Trudi Terry and Irene Dickerman, for their years of service to the House of Representatives. Both Trudi and Irene will be retiring after working in the Clerk of the House's organization for more than 15 years. Trudi was born in Amarillo, Texas and received a Bachelor of Arts and Science in Secondary Education with certification in English, Speech, and Physical Education from West Texas State University. After college, Trudi became a Certified Reporter Instructor (CRI) and Certified Program Evaluator (CPE) from the National Court Reporters Association (NCRA). As a CPE, Trudi was a member of the national evaluating team tasked with traveling to schools nationwide and determining if those schools met the certification requirements of the NCRA. In 1999, Trudi was hired as a Scopist in the Office of the Official Reporters, a division within the Clerk of the House's organization. As a Scopist, Trudi edited the official transcript, first for House committees and then proceedings of the House floor for the Congressional Record. In 2001, Trudi moved into a new role within the Clerk's organization and assumed the position as the Assistant Chief Clerk of Debates. In 2004, Trudi became the Chief Clerk of Debates and will hold this position until her retirement on February 3, 2014. During her tenure, Trudi developed a reputation of having a strong work ethic and steadfast dedication to the institution of the House of Representatives. She will be missed by Members of Congress, House staff, and her department colleagues. Irene Dickerman was born in Los Angeles, California and received a Bachelor of Arts and Science in English Literature from California State University in Northridge, California. After college, Irene also became a CPI from the NCRA. In 1999, Irene was hired as a Scopist in the Office of the Official Reporters. As a Scopist, Irene edited the official transcript, first for House committees and then proceedings of the House floor for the Congressional Record. In 2006, Irene became the Chief Editor and will be in this position until her retirement on February 3, 2014. Irene was well respected as an individual who possessed deep institutional knowledge and maintained a strong level of accuracy in her capacity within the Clerk of the House's organization.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 125th anniversary of Rock Creek Park, I introduce a bill to redesignate Rock Creek Park in the District of Columbia as ``Rock Creek National Park in the District of Columbia.'' The bill will help clarify the difference between the contiguous Rock Creek Park land that is owned by the State of Maryland and the portion that is under federal jurisdiction in the District of Columbia. Renaming this park will also highlight the significance of the park for the nation, including visitors to the nation's capital, and particularly for the residents of the District of Columbia, to encourage more daily use and involvement with the park's beautiful trails, waterways and features. Rock Creek Park is a historically rich park, established by Congress in 1890 ``for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the United States,'' and is the oldest urban park and the third federal park ever created, after Yellowstone and Sequoia. Rock Creek Park was designed to preserve animals, timber, forestry, and other interests in the park, and to ensure that the natural state of the park is maintained as much as possible. Over time, several structures have been established or donated to further preserve Rock Creek Park. In 1892, for example, the federal government acquired Peirce Mill in Rock Creek Park, one of the mills used by local farmers during the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. In 1950, the Old Stone House located at 3051 M Street NW., with great pre- Revolutionary War architectural merit, was acquired. The building was restored, and programs explain the house's rich history from the colonial period to present day. The Fort Circle Parks were also acquired to interpret and preserve the Civil Defenses of Washington, which created a ring of protection for the nation's capital during the Civil War. Today, Rock Creek Park offers District of Columbia, Maryland, and Northern Virginia residents an escape from urban living. Residents and tourists alike also enjoy many activities in the park's 2,000 acres, including hiking and bike riding on the historical trails, horseback riding, picnicking, tennis, and other recreational activities in some of the open fields. Moreover, residents are involved in the cleanup and maintenance of the trails and waterways. Rock Creek Conservancy works directly with the National Park Service and is dedicated to protecting and promoting the entirety of the Rock Creek watershed through conservation, recreation, and education programs. Redesignating Rock Creek Park will help highlight its national status and protect and revitalize this remarkable resource in our nation's capital. It also is fitting that we recognize its historical significance as we approach the 125th anniversary of Rock Creek Park. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the legislation.