Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I enter this statement on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU. The ACLU is a non-partisan organization with more than 500,000 members, 53 state and local affiliations, and countless additional activists and supporters, dedicated to the principles of equality and justice as set forth in the U.S. Constitution and in our laws protecting individual rights. The ACLU asked me to enter the following statement into the Record recognizing Sharon Kissel, a DC resident who serves as Legislative Librarian for the organization. On the 15th anniversary of Sharon Kissel's tenure with the American Civil Liberties Union Washington Legislative Office, her colleagues and many friends would like to honor her tremendous work over the past two decades on many of our nation's most pressing civil rights and civil liberties issues. In her role as the Legislative Librarian, Sharon is one of the unsung heroines in the ACLU's efforts to achieve equal justice, freedom, and fairness for all. Over the past 15 years, Sharon's work has been critical to a wide range of issues, including the ACLU's advancement of the Fair Sentencing Act, the Violence Against Women Act, and the ACLU's national security advocacy. Sharon has been a key participant in some of the most important civil liberties and civil and human rights campaigns over the past 15 years. One area of concern particularly in which she has been involved is the restoration of the rule of law in interrogations and detention practices in violation of human rights and the U.S. Constitution. She has participated in one of the leading coalitions against torture and indefinite detention, as a researcher, writer, and source of wise counsel for her colleagues. Further, her work has been an integral part of the ACLU's efforts to protect our democracy from Constitutional amendments that would diminish the basic rights afforded to all Americans. Her research and advice were important to helping prevent an array of constitutional amendments, including the flag desecration amendment, the school prayer amendment, the federal marriage amendment, and the so-named victims' rights amendment. Without the work of Sharon and her coalition partners, the Bill of Rights would have been riddled with exceptions. No matter what the issue, Sharon always approaches research with a joy and a curiosity that is contagious, which is part of the reason she is beloved by her current and former colleagues. Sharon is also described by her colleagues as a ``genius'' for her ability to find arcane tidbits of legislative history. Her daily in-depth review of the Congressional Record and other legislative research provides incredibly timely information. By feeding her colleagues these buried nuggets of information, Sharon helps the rest of the legislative staff shine as advocates for their issues. Sharon is the ACLU's secret weapon--pouring over 800-page bills and the barrage of amendments attached to omnibus bills. Her keen attention to Congress and broader public policy debates has enabled the ACLU to address many potential challenges to civil liberties, even before they reach the House or Senate floor. Moreover, Sharon has ushered the entire ACLU team's legal research capacity into the 21st century. She works continually to maximize resources and expand access to online research tools for her colleagues nationally. Throughout her career, Sharon's colleagues have also celebrated and admired her perennial role as a patient teacher and a devoted mentor to many who have worked with her over the years. In addition to her invaluable work at the ACLU, Sharon's impressive career as a librarian spans over 40 years, and includes her work at the White House, the World Bank, the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Bar Association of the District of Columbia, and Shea & Gardner. Sharon also organized and managed the information resource center for President Bill Clinton's transition team after his election in 1992. Furthermore, Sharon's accomplishments in the field of library science extend to her professional affiliations--she has previously served as the President of the Law Librarians' Society of Washington, DC, and as a Member of the Board of Directors of the National Equal Justice Institute Library. Sharon has also worked as a faculty member for the American Association of Law Libraries Summer Institute. Sharon came of age during the civil rights movement, and her passion for civil rights and social justice extends to her personal life. She has been actively engaged in DC politics for decades and is the go-to resource on local civic and political issues, with a particular interest in safety and zoning issues. Many in the office, who have been working in national politics for decades, go to Sharon for information on local DC matters. Sharon's strong personal belief in the Bill of Rights and her devotion to her local community occasionally have sparked her to take action, such as the time she organized a demonstration of roughly 30 librarians in front of Kramer books when it appeared that the bookstore was going to comply with Kenneth Starr's subpoena of private book purchases in 1998. The owner of the store ultimately decided to challenge the subpoena on constitutional grounds. Sharon and her beloved husband of over 40 years, Peter, also are active alumni of their alma mater, Syracuse University, and they established an endowed fund at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs to support activities that contribute to public understanding of civil rights and liberties. Sharon actually decided to pursue a career in librarianship after a work-study job in the Maxwell School Library, and Sharon and Peter have long maintained close ties to the school. She also received an M.L.S. from the University of Maryland, where she was a member of the Phi Kappa Phi Honorary Society. Beyond her many professional accomplishments and contributions, Sharon is a dear friend to many at the ACLU. She has a generous and compassionate spirit. Sharon is always willing to share her deep love of Ireland and Irish politics, which has been a shared passion of her and her husband throughout their lives, and she will often bring back food or treats from her trips to Ireland with Peter to share with her colleagues. She is devoted to her family and enjoys her dogs, traveling, gardening, art, and music--especially Irish music! The personal and professional lives of her ACLU colleagues are richer because of Sharon's contributions, and we honor her 15 years of service to the ACLU and hope for many more.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, when the President alerted the country that student loan interest rates would double July 1, our Republican friends called it a fake controversy, that they always intended to take care of it. Why, then, was it nowhere to be found in the Republican Ryan budget? Why do they want to pay for it with the health care funds of the parents and grandparents of the Class of 2012? This year's class will graduate with an unemployment rate for their age group that is twice the national average. Keeping their loan rates low should be this session's no-brainer. If student loan rates go to 6.8 percent, they will be paying above the mortgage interest rates of many Americans. Treasury is borrowing at virtually zero. Congress has not given the Class of 2012 a jobs bill. One graduation gift we can give them is the current 3.4 percent interest rate.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers and I again urge passage of S. 1302 and yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this important legislation, which would result in the efficient disposal of a parcel of Federal real property to the city of Tracy, California. It has been outstanding for some years. The city of Tracy, with a population of 80,000, has been hard hit by the economic recession. Unemployment in and around Tracy stood at 16.2 percent a year ago, a level far higher than the national average. The people of Tracy are looking for every available avenue to revive their economy, and they have found such a stimulus in the potential construction of a solar field. Congress can assist Tracy in its economic recovery by supporting S. 1302. This bill authorizes the city of Tracy to purchase, without restriction, 150 acres of Federal land previously conveyed by Congress for a specific public benefit use. The city would pay the Federal Government fair market value for the release of this reversionary interest. The conveyance of land would permit Tracy to build a solar field at the site, a use which enjoys strong local support. Tracy estimates that construction of a solar field will create approximately 200 jobs, which are much needed in the city. The project will also generate cleaner sources of energy and will alleviate the air-quality challenges that presently afflict that area. These are all powerful reasons to support the legislation. I urge passage of S. 1302, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Kennedy Center, a Presidential memorial, is one of the Nation's busiest arts facilities, presenting more than 2,000 performances annually and hosting thousands of theater-goers, visitors, and tourists. In fact, it is considered by many to be the greatest performing arts center in the world. The Kennedy Center also provides educational programs for both teachers and students from pre-kindergarten through college across the United States. H.R. 4097 is a bipartisan bill that authorizes the Kennedy Center for a total of $36 million for fiscal years 2013 and 2014 for maintenance, repair, and capital projects only. These authorization levels are derived from the Kennedy Center's 2001 comprehensive building plan, and the funding is being held flat for fiscal year 2013 and 2014. The bill also authorizes the Kennedy Center to construct a 100,000- square-foot addition for educational programs, using no Federal funds, and with the same restrictions on naming rights as the rest of the building. In addition to the Kennedy Center's responsibility to run a national program promoting the arts, it is, first and foremost, a Presidential memorial, and we have a responsibility to fund its maintenance consistent with the dignity of a Presidential memorial. This memorial remains a fitting tribute to President John F. Kennedy, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4097. Mr. Speaker, I am cosponsor of this bill, but I am pleased to note that the Kennedy Center has gone very national, and it has taken not only its own programs nationally, but it aids arts programs throughout the United States. It raises its own funds, but of course, even if this weren't a Presidential memorial, it is very hard to raise private funds for maintenance and repair of a memorial in Washington. So I think that the flat funding for 2013 and '14 is more than justified. I'd like to commend President Michael Kaiser, yes, and the board of trustees, once again, on the art services, the cultural services they are bringing across the Nation, as well as to the Nation's Capital. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. House Concurrent Resolution 117 authorizes use of the Capitol Grounds for the 31st Annual National Peace Officers' Memorial Service on May 15 on the West Front of the Capitol, a solemn and respectful public event in our Nation's Capital honoring our heroic law enforcement officers who were killed in the line of duty in 2011. According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, last year, 173 brave men and women were killed in the line of duty. Unfortunately, however, the number of officers killed in the line of duty increased 13 percent from 2010, with this year marking the first time in 14 years where more officers died from firearms-related incidents than from traffic-related incidents. Over 19,000 law enforcement officers have been killed while on duty since the first law enforcement death was recorded in 1791. The National Peace Officers' Memorial Service is a fitting tribute to the 900,000 current law enforcement officers and all Federal, State, and local peace officers who give their lives in the daily work of protecting our families, our homes, and our workplaces. We honor these officers and their families on the Capitol Grounds for both their service and the ultimate sacrifice that some pay to maintain peace in communities across America. Consistent with all Capitol Hill events, the memorial service will be free and open to the public. I support the resolution and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this tribute to our fallen peace officers. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This year marks the 27th Annual Law Enforcement Torch Run to benefit the District of Columbia Special Olympics. The torch relay event is a traditional event organized by law enforcement personnel for the D.C. Special Olympics, which takes place at Catholic University later this month. This event has become a popular event on Capitol Hill and is an integral part of the fundraising efforts for the D.C. Special Olympics, raising thousands of funds through their own sales of t-shirts. Torch Run participants will assemble at the U.S. Capitol Building on June 1, 2012, for opening ceremonies, and then they will proceed to run or walk a 2.3-mile course to Fort McNair. Each year, approximately 2,500 Special Olympians compete in over a dozen events in the District of Columbia, and more than 1 million children and adults with special needs participate in Special Olympics programs worldwide. The goal of the competitions is to allow mentally challenged individuals to participate in events where they are accepted and respected. Confidence and self-esteem are the building blocks for the Special Olympic Games. The Special Olympics of the District of Columbia have been operating for 43 years and have been providing services to a wide swath of D.C. residents. All programs offered to Special Olympics' athletes are always free of charge. I am truly and personally pleased to support such a worthwhile organization, and I urge Members of the House to support House Concurrent Resolution 118 as well. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the bipartisanship of this bill. To my good friend, the minority whip from Maryland, I can only say that the championship that your own district brought back is enough to make us think that our area teams might one day have a championship. We know this much: these students have to construct these soap boxes themselves. I mean, this is your STEM leaders still to come, the engineers of the future. I have no further speakers, and I appreciate all of the support of our good friends on the other side. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am delighted to support House Concurrent Resolution 106 which authorizes use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby on June 16, 2012. I would also like to offer my appreciation to the majority and to acknowledge the efforts of Mr. Hoyer, who has been a consistent champion for his constituents in this event, and the entire delegation from this region, who supports this event every year. On the date of the event, children and young adults from the Greater Washington area race down Constitution Avenue to test their craftsmanship in hand-designed and -constructed soap box vehicles in the Annual Soap Box Derby. Children between the ages of 8 and 17 will be competing for the opportunity to race in the National All-American Soap Box Derby held every August in Akron, Ohio. Consistent with all events using the Capitol Grounds, this event is open to the public and free of charge. The organizers will work with the Capitol Police and the Architect of the Capitol to organize the details of the event. I strongly support H. Con. Res. 106 and urge passage of this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, in a week spent commemorating the 150th anniversary of the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act, which was signed into law on April 16, 1862, freeing the first slaves in the United States. District residents were again reminded of the denial of freedom and democracy that exist at home. On Thursday, April 19, 2012, leaders of the D.C. Statehood Student Association and George Washington University students marched from The George Washington University campus to the Capitol as part of the ``Last Colony March and Rally for D.C. Democracy.'' Six of them engaged in acts of civil disobedience and were arrested. Along the three-mile route from Kogan Plaza to Upper Senate Park, others joined the young activists, calling for action on important matters of D.C. democracy, ranging from budget autonomy to full congressional representation. The six activists, Brian Crawford, Corante Henderson, Moo Ho Bae II, Markus Batchelor, Matt Laurinavicus, and Patrick Kennedy, went into the street at Constitution Avenue and First Street, where they sat down and blocked traffic, and were arrested for their act of civil disobedience. Their courage shows that the civil disobedience that began here one year ago will continue until Congress grants D.C. full democracy. On April 11, 2011, the D.C. Mayor and six members of the D.C. Council were among 41 people who were arrested on Capitol Hill in a large display of civil disobedience. They protested the action of Congress and the administration in trading away the District's right to spend its local funds on abortion services for low-income women. I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the courageous acts of Brian Crawford, Corante Henderson, Moo Ho Bae II, Markus Batchelor, Matt Laurinavicus, and Patrick Kennedy, students at The George Washington University and leaders in the D.C. Statehood Student Association. They exemplify the time-honored tradition of using civil disobedience to combat injustice, and remind us that the District's great struggle for democracy is expanding and will continue until freedom and equality come to the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I want to thank my very good friend from Maryland, Congresswoman Edwards. It's so typical of her to come to the floor on an urgent issue like this. I have to chuckle when you say about my having been a tenured professor of law at Georgetown, the gentleman from Rhode Island who was one of my students and the gentleman from Detroit was another. So it makes me feel pretty ancient, but it makes me feel very good, also, to see that my students got elected to the Congress while I was still here. I can't imagine what the gentleman from Rhode Island went through because I never experienced it, but he probably had college loans coming out of college. Don't even let me talk about tuition at Georgetown Law School. A very good law school, but one of the most expensive in the country. As a matter of fact, I'm still a tenured professor of law at Georgetown because under the rules of the House, you can teach and still be a Member. So I teach one course there every year. I'm coming to the end of the school year. I go over every other Monday just to keep my brain intact. Sometimes this is a place that gets your brain out of order. It's certainly out of order when it comes to student loans. The notion that we have to come to the floor today to plead for student loans during a recovery from the great recession, when these great people get out of school, they are not likely to get a job. The very least you would think this Congress could do effortlessly would be to say, Look, you had to take loans; you have to pay interest. We know that means that you're going to be delayed years from doing what all of us did, which was to buy a house pretty early in our careers. These students will not have the credit to buy a house. First of all, they'll have to pay off their loans. They can't liquidate them in bankruptcy. As with other debts. Now they face the possibility of a doubling of their interest. When Democrats were in power, we adjusted those interest rates. What a cruel hoax, to let them double, particularly since we're just coming out of a recovery. College students are now beginning to get jobs for the first time. They have started out their careers without any jobs and are faced with humongous loans. I don't know how people go to graduate school like my good friend from Rhode Island. Of course, if you go to certain kinds of graduate schools, there are stipends but for people in graduate education, there are only loans on top of their undergraduate loans. If you go to law school and medical school, you're really on your own. Those are professional schools. You're going with a huge amount of debt. In my own district, which, remember, is only one city, the borrowers this year were almost 65,000, and if the interest rates increase, it will bring them to something over $13 billion. I don't even want to tell my constituents that. They're depending on me to do something about it. And here on the floor we hear nonsense about ``how are you going to pay for it?'' Are you going to pay for it by stripping health care for women, children, for your parents in order to keep your interest rates from going up? Are you going to pay for it by leaving Big Oil alone in order to keep your interest rates from going up? Our values are way off-kilter when we haven't reached a solution by now, when we're this close to a drop-dead date. That's what it will mean for many students. We haven't come to an understanding, first, that we'll raise it. The President had to go around the country, making it clear that this issue was on the front burner, because it certainly wasn't there until he did so. Now people come forward. For example, Mr. Romney said, he's for making sure these rates don't go up. But does he have an idea about how to make sure they don't go up? Why doesn't he tell our colleagues here in the House how to make sure they don't go up so that they don't hurt one group of citizens in order to help another group of citizens? So we come to the floor today--I along with the gentlelady from Maryland and the gentleman from Rhode Island--because we don't intend to let this issue go until we, in fact, find a way to pay for the loans we have told young people to take. We told them, Go to college. Yes, you'll have a little debt, but go to college and you are made. We've already broken that promise because they come out of college now, and they don't have the workforce opportunities that we, ourselves, had. Let's not break another promise--the promise that they will not be stuck with a debt which is much greater than the debt they already pay. The debt they already pay will delay their coming into the same kind of life style that their parents have. Yes, they're going home to live with their parents because, if you've got this student debt, you're hardly able to go out and rent an apartment in Washington, in Maryland, or in Rhode Island. Yes, they're going home. If we want to make sure that they're able to strike out on their own, the one thing we don't want to do is to burden them with a greater debt than they already have, and they have on the average a $25,000 debt. Even when I got out of school--you know, that was sometime in the 18th century--I cannot imagine what I would have done with a $25,000 debt. Even in real terms today, that's a lot of money, friends. If we care at all about our young people, we will find a way that does not rob Peter to pay Paul in order to relieve them of this debt.

Ms. NORTON. I want to thank my friend from Maryland. I want to add to her list because importantly when our party, the Democrats, took control, the interest rates were where they will go in July. They were at 6.8 percent. We felt the pain, and we lowered those rates to their present 3.4. But the way they were phased in, they would go up again to 6.8. Do you see what we were trying to do in 2007? We recognized this was a major issue and took those rates down, which I'm sure encouraged many people to go to college in the first place. Now we have young people with an unemployment rate of about 14 percent if you're between 20 and 24. That's terrible when you consider that nationally it's about 8 percent. And I'm very distressed that already there is an almost 15 percent increase delinquency rates in student loans, which will add to the interest rates were talking about and the interest rates that we're trying to keep at least level. I want to thank you again for leading this Special Order so that America knows before it's too late.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, now that the cherry blossoms have signaled that spring has come, I introduce the Lifelong Improvements in Food and Exercise Act (LIFE), authorizing a national initiative to attack a major health problem in the United States that cannot be remedied through the health care system alone. Growing problems of overweight and obesity are now found in Americans of every age, race, and major demographic group, and threatens the health of Americans like no other single disease or condition does. In fact, the key to eliminating many of the most serious health conditions is reducing overweight and obesity, not even the much need Affordable Care Act. The LIFE bill would provide $25 million in funding 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 NBC's `The Biggest Loser' to a steady stream of diet books, startling rates of obesity among adults and children continue in the United States. In 2007, estimates from the CDC National Center for Health Statistics showed that the percentage of children who are overweight has more than doubled, and among adolescents, the rates have tripled since 1980. Today, 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 healthcare system and the insurance premium of average Americans are paying the price for this generation. The consequences for kids will follow them throughout their lives if we do not act quickly and decisively. If we are serious about healthcare, we must start where the most serious health conditions begin: in the epidemic of overweight and obesity. The LIFE bill seeks to provide the first national strategy by directing the CDC to pursue obesity and sedentary lifestyles in three ways: train health professionals to recognize the signs of obesity early and educate people concerning healthy lifestyles, such as proper nutrition and regular exercise; conduct education campaigns to teach the public about how to recognize and address overweight and obesity; and develop intervention strategies to be used in everyday life at worksites and in community settings. This legislation is the minimum necessary to address our most important healthcare crisis. Already, chronic diseases, many of which are caused or exacerbated by overweight or obesity, account for 70 percent of all deaths in the U.S., and 60 percent of U.S. medical care expenses annually. According to the Surgeon General's Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity, the cost of obesity in the United States was more than $117 billion in 2000. The CDC highlights a study that estimates the annual cost to be $147 billion. Currently, 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 has dropped from 42 percent in 1991 to 33 percent in 2005. National data show an increase in unhealthy eating habits for adults and no change in physical activity. Changes in nutrition are equally critical because 60 percent of young people consume too much fat, a factor doubling the percentage of overweight youth. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation to mobilize the country now, before entirely preventable health conditions, that often begin in children, overwhelm the Nation's health care system.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a Washington, DC institution, which I have the distinct honor and pleasure representing in this body, that has been a local leader in the struggle for equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, LGBT, people: the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, DC, GLAA. GLAA has, since its founding in April 1971, remained a respected and tireless advocate for political freedom for the District of Columbia and for equal rights for its residents. GLAA continues in the vanguard of efforts to strengthen enforcement of DC's landmark Human Rights Act of 1977. GLAA, by working with coalition partners, DC officials and the wider public, implemented a well-crafted plan of grass-roots action and education that helped achieve marriage equality in the District. GLAA fights to ensure that LGBT residents are treated fairly and respectfully by DC agencies, from the police and fire departments to the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs to the DC public schools. GLAA pushes for effective public health strategies and accountability in the fight against HIV/AIDS. GLAA has rated all DC Mayoral and Council candidates in every election since the establishment of home rule, and uses a system noted for its fairness and nonpartisanship. GLAA provides leadership in coalition efforts on a wide range of civil rights issues, from family rights to condom availability in prisons and public schools to police accountability. GLAA activity opposes federal restrictions on the District's budget that adversely affect LGBT people. GLAA enhances its outreach by maintaining a comprehensive website of LGBT advocacy materials, the GLAA Forum blog, and the DCGayEtc.com news aggregator. On April 26, GLAA will hold its 41st Anniversary Reception honoring this year's recipients of its Distinguished Service Awards: Burgundy Crescent Volunteers, The Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League, Ruby Corado, Jeri Hughes, Will O'Bryan, and Jeffrey D. Richardson. Burgundy Crescent Volunteers was founded in 2001 as a source of LGBT volunteers for gay and gay-friendly non-profit organizations in the District, Maryland, and Virginia, and brings LGBT singles and couples together for volunteer activities that are social in nature. The group, a non-profit, has over 5,000 members, who have provided over 100,000 volunteer hours to the community. Their good efforts have ranged from doing yard work for GLAA's founder, Frank Kameny, to pruning the cherry trees at the Tidal Basin. The Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League, SMYAL, was founded in 1984 to promote and support self-confident, healthy, and productive lives for LGBT and questioning youth ages 13 21, as they transition from adolescence into adulthood. SMYAL is the only Washington metro area service organization dedicated solely to supporting LGBTQ and questioning youth. The staff and volunteers concentrate on five activities: Life Skills and Leadership Development; Counseling and Support; Health and Wellness Education; Safe Social Activities; and Community Outreach and Education. Ruby Corado has been a transgender rights activist in DC for over 15 years, focusing on the Latino community in the areas of health care, HIV, human rights, and immigration. She has been tireless and outspoken in defending and assisting transgender people, demanding justice for brutalized and murdered sex workers. She has been at victims' hospital bedsides, at meetings with police officials, and at crime scenes, and has organized vigils, bringing her own experience as a Latina transwoman to bear in promoting the interests of this at-risk community in our city. Ruby has worked as a program manager for Whitman Walker Health, Transgender Health Empowerment, and Latinas En Accion, a group she has led for many years. Jeri Hughes has persistently and doggedly pressed the District government to increase its employment of transgender people. Her efforts led Mayor Vincent Gray to direct the Department of Employment Services to conduct Project Empowerment job training for transgender citizens. Her efforts to highlight violations of the DC Human Rights Act by the Department of Corrections have led to ongoing efforts by the city and activists to improve the treatment of the city's transgender inmates and detainees. Jeri Hughes helps transgender people every day in her job at Transgender Health Empowerment. Will O'Bryan is Managing Editor of Metro Weekly, which he joined in 2005 as a community reporter. He previously served as a news reporter and arts editor for the Washington Blade, and as a media liaison for a nonprofit health organization. Prior to that, he was arts and entertainment editor for Just Out, the Pacific Northwest's premier LGBT publication. Will is an unwavering advocate for coverage of the entire breadth of the LGBT community, especially those who are often neglected. In his biweekly column, ``Stonewall Baby,'' he personally engages issues affecting our entire community. He exemplifies the quiet, unheralded commitment of the many people who do the vital work of building community. Jeffrey D. Richardson is Director of the Mayor's Office of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Affairs, where he has taken the initiative to connect activists with key agency staff and get results. His tireless efforts have ranged from advocacy within the government to supervising young LGBT interns. He brings to his job the empathy and service-oriented approach that he developed in his career as a social worker. In his prior post as president of the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club, he was a steady leader who worked amicably and productively with GLAA and other advocacy groups and this year's recipients of its Distinguished Service Award. I ask the House to join me in congratulating the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring Francis Lee Contracting as the 2012 District of Columbia Small Business of the Year, as well as its principals, Brian Smith, Geary Powell, and Terry Smith. Francis Lee Contracting is a District of Columbia small business specializing in excavation, grading, site concrete, clearing, grubbing, and demolition. After doing work in the initial stages of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, DHS, headquarters construction project at the St. Elizabeths West Campus, Francis Lee Contracting was selected as a subcontractor to perform earthwork for the perimeter security fence there, because of the high quality of its work. Francis Lee Contracting is located in Ward 8, where the DHS headquarters construction is taking place and which is the section of our city with the highest unemployment rate. Francis Lee Contracting has worked to improve the local community and has hired Ward 8 residents. Francis Lee Contracting has over 50 years of experience in the construction field, on both public- and private-sector projects, and has several certifications, including Certified Business Enterprise and certifications to work with the District Department of Transportation, the Maryland Department of Transportation, and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. Francis Lee Contracting continues to share its experience and knowledge with other small businesses by sponsoring and participating in training sessions about bonding and other aspects of the construction industry. The House of Representatives is gratified when a local small business competes and is selected to perform work on a federal construction project because of its quality of work, as exemplified by Francis Lee Contracting. I ask the House to join me in honoring Francis Lee Contracting and its principal, Brian Smith, for its outstanding accomplishments and commitment to the residents of the Distinct of Columbia, and in commending Francis Lee Contracting on becoming the 2012 District of Columbia Small Business of the Year.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I've come to the floor today to inform the Congress of exciting new developments about the major priority for the District of Columbia for this year's Congress. These developments have come very quickly, both in the Congress and in the Nation. We now have unprecedented momentum, both in the country and here in the Congress, to allow the District to spend its own local funds without coming to the Congress of the United States. That will seem very strange to Members of the public since they've never heard of a local jurisdiction having to bring its own local funds to a national legislature, which had nothing to do with raising those funds, for approval to spend them. It is an anomaly whose time has passed. And I'm very pleased at the response we are getting in the Congress, and that we have gotten in very little time, less than 6 months. We see it culminating in a national poll that, in essence, blesses the momentum we are seeing in the Congress for budget autonomy for the District of Columbia. This poll was released just this week, and it's been an important week for the District of Columbia, because the District has just celebrated Emancipation Day. The slaves who lived in the District of Columbia were emancipated 9 months before slaves in the rest of the United States. And there's some analogy here, my friends, because what was not emancipated was the budget of the District of Columbia. And that's what we're trying to free now. And that's what the American people seem to want, by a very large majority. A polling organization that is bipartisan, called Purple Insights, using the traditional methodologies that you see in all the national polls, asked this question of Americans in all parts of the country, from both parties and Indepedents. The question was preceded by the following: The budget of the city of Washington, DC, is funded by local residents' tax dollars. Do you think that decisions about Washington, DC's local budget should be made by Washington, DC, taxpayers and their own elected officials, or should those budget decisions be made by the U.S. Congress? And here are the results. Seventy-one percent of the American people said the DC budget should be decided exclusively by the DC government. Only 23 percent said that the decisions should be made by the U.S. Congress. What is most gratifying is the way in which these numbers reflect both parties. The polling organization broke down these numbers, and they were careful to ask people from both parties. For Democrats, the notion that the budget should be decided only by the DC government was 71 percent. But Independents were at 75 percent, and Republicans were at 72 percent. So, no matter where my colleagues come from, their constituents support the bedrock principle--no principle is more American--that if you raise the money, you get to decide how to use it. And you certainly don't go to a national body for approval. And they looked at men and women. 68 percent of men, and 72 percent of women believe that the local government should decide the local budget and be the final decisionmakers. If you look at regions of the country, Mr. Speaker, they had the same kind of virtually even breakdown in support of local control. If you look at the Northeast, it's 69 percent. You look at the Midwest, it goes up to 74 percent. You look at the South, it's 68 percent. You look at the West, it's 72 percent. No red-blooded American is going to say, with a straight face, that you can take my local budget with my money in it and make the Congress the final decision-maker on that budget. That's what this poll shows. The Republicans and the Democrats are virtually even. But more Republicans say that DC budgets should be made by the local DC government; that's 72 percent, 71 percent Democrats. If you look at those who oppose, the opposition shows the same breakdown. You have 24 percent of Democrats saying Congress should control the DC budget, and you have 22 percent of Republicans. Where's your majority here? The majority is where I think most people would have expected it to be. But I am grateful for a local organization called DC Vote for commissioning this poll. And DC Vote realized that the poll might come under some scrutiny, so it went to a polling organization which is known for its bipartisan reputation in polling. That, of course, should be all we need to hear, but the fact is we have a parallel development right here in the Congress. This week, Senator Joe Lieberman announced that he was preparing his own budget autonomy bill for the District of Columbia. Now, Senator Lieberman, who works in a very bipartisan way in the Senate--I am so sorry to see that he has decided to retire--has long been the foremost Senate champion of equal rights for residents of the District of Columbia. The momentum for budget autonomy began with a Republican chairman in the House, Darrell Issa. I will have something to say about how that happened. We then had two more Republican leaders--House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and the Republican Governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell--weigh in for budget autonomy for the District of Columbia. This week, citizens from the organization DC Vote were here in the Congress, speaking to Members about the latest poll results. But let me say something about the Members because it's the Members who have the last say here. As chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Darrell Issa is responsible in the House for matters that involve the District of Columbia. His committee, and I've been here more than 20 years, had never had a hearing on the DC budget. He decided to have one. He listened to his witnesses, and he listened to the chief financial officer of the District of Columbia and to other District of Columbia officials. What he heard was that the District of Columbia had the largest budget surplus in the United States, here in the middle of a recession, and that its budget and finances were in better shape than those of virtually any State in the United States. He heard the witnesses from his side as well as our side--the Republican side as well as the Democratic side--and from objective witnesses from the outside saying that the major problem the District faces are the inefficiencies and the premiums it pays on Wall Street because its local budget cannot be implemented until it is approved by the Congress of the United States. This creates huge uncertainty, of course, among bondholders and on Wall Street not of the making of our citizens but due to the fact that the Congress has to approve the City's budget. Now, I can tell you that no one can remember when the Congress of the United States has changed the City's budget itself, and you can imagine why. A budget is a very delicate document to put together, and Congress does not have the kind of hearings you would have here to know what to take out and what to put in and how to sew it back together again. So what's the point of bringing it over here except tradition? The chairman listened to the problems with bringing the D.C. budget to the Congress and heard even more problems than he expected. School begins in September, but by the time Congress finishes with the Federal budgets, even the earliest point is September 30. The reason that most jurisdictions are on a July 1 fiscal year and not a fiscal year that begins on October 1, as the Federal Government does, is precisely because of the importance of schools in every jurisdiction. But in the District, our schools and our city are handicapped by the fact that the budget isn't approved by the time school opens. That impressed the chairman, apparently, and he was impressed by the fact--and I will soon get to this issue--that the District government has faced shutdowns because its budget was here during fights over the Federal budget, which has resulted in the possibility of the shutdown of the D.C. government. Chairman Issa listened at the hearing and did something I've never seen a chairman of a committee do before in my years in the Congress. He listened so intently, heard so well that he announced as the hearing ended that he intended to write a bill for DC budget autonomy. Everyone was surprised. His staff told us they had no idea in advance. Mr. Issa decided upon hearing the witnesses at his hearing. That is, I must say to my colleagues and to members of the public, a civics lesson in committee work at its best. The chairman listened. The chairman made a decision. The chairman then went to work. He worked on several versions of a budget autonomy bill, and exchanged them with me, with the mayor, and with other officials in the city. There were some issues, and we indicated what those difficulties would be operationally. Then, he announced his final proposal for a DC budget autonomy bill. I can tell you that, while it has its own form that clearly bears his signature, in many ways it mirrors my own DC Budget Autonomy Act. You can imagine how thrilled we were that the chairman of the full committee had, indeed, decided that it was in the best interest of the District of Columbia and in the best interest of the Congress for the District's budget to remain in the District and to be implemented in the same way that the budgets of every other jurisdiction in the United States, except the budget of the District, are implemented. June 30 comes. On July 1, other jurisdictions begin to implement their budget. They prepare for school, and they are ready when school begins. Mr. Issa's bill came to the attention of the President of the United States. The President had weighed in the year before for budget autonomy, but upon hearing of Mr. Issa's bill, he included in his own budget, which was submitted this year, the following language: Consistent with the principle of home rule, it is the administration's view that the District's local budget should be authorized to take effect without a separate annual Federal appropriation bill. The administration will work with Congress and the mayor to pass legislation to amend the D.C. Home Rule Act to provide the District with local budget autonomy. That's the President's statement, inspired by the Republican chairman's proposal for budget autonomy. I know that there are many in this Chamber and in the public who see rare instances--perhaps none--of bipartisan ideas from this Congress. There you see one. You see a Democratic President. You see a strong Republican chairman. Mr. Speaker, that is not all. Mr. Issa was moved, in part, to address budget autonomy because of the problems the District has had with Federal shutdown threats. Most of America is aware of the shutdown threats. By the skin of our teeth, we barely missed a shutdown a year ago. No one believes, of course, that the underlying issues had anything to do with the District of Columbia budget. Those issues are well-known. They involve disagreements between Democrats and Republicans over Federal issues like the Federal deficit. The District has long had a balanced budget, and as I indicated before, beyond its balanced budget, it has the highest surplus in the United States. So why is the District of Columbia caught in Federal fights that lead to the possibility of shutdowns of the Federal Government? If the D.C. budget is here, if the budget of the District of Columbia is here and has not been passed by the Congress--and it usually is not passed until, of course, the Federal budgets are passed, or certainly no sooner than September 30--then the District of Columbia's local budget gets thrown in the pot with a budget of--for instance--Health and Human Services, the Department of Defense, all of the Federal agencies that get shut down, though there's nothing that the District can do to extricate itself from this fight, because this fight does not involve any concession that the District can make--it involves only Federal issues--nevertheless, the District government will get shut down with the Federal Government. There were three shutdown threats in 2011. The Federal Government didn't get shut down, although I can tell you it came so close to being shut down I don't even like to think about it. The problem is that every time there is the threat of a Federal shutdown, the local government of the District of Columbia has to spend time and money preparing to shutdown, whether or not it occurs. Imagine your county, imagine your city pulling people together three times to prepare for a shutdown, to prepare for which agencies can keep going and which agencies to shut down. Because in the event of a shutdown, the only agencies that can be kept in operation are essential agencies. Three times the District of Columbia government had to do that. The District of Columbia is going through the same problems that every local jurisdiction is having as we climb out of the Great Recession. You can imagine what a waste of time and energy that was. That was one of the issues that made Chairman Issa think through the notion of budget autonomy. I myself have had several bills to keep the District government from shutting down in the case of a Federal Government shutdown. I put in a bill each fiscal year saying that if the Federal Government shuts down, the District can spend its own local funds, no other funds, no Federal funds, nobody can spend those, but its own local funds. Those bills have not passed. Just 2 months ago, I warned the mayor that we could be headed for a shutdown this year because the Senate and the House have different budgets. An agreement was reached between the two Chambers in the Budget Control Act about the level of spending in 2013. While the Senate has stuck to that number, the House is using another number. So if the two don't agree, and they each come forward with different appropriation bills, the country could be faced again with the possible shutdown of the Federal Government. That's bad enough for the country, but suppose you were the mayor of the District of Columbia or a member of the city council and had to consider that there could be a shutdown of the District government over the fact that the House and the Senate are using different budget numbers this year? That would be enough to make you, I think, tremble, as I'm sure the District is now as it considers what to do. Of course, Congress is going to try to reach some agreement. But at the moment, they're going in absolutely divergent directions, despite having reached an agreement on what the number would be for the budget this year. The President, noting these shutdown threats and the cost to the taxpayers of the District of Columbia, did something quite unusual. He not only submitted his views on budget autonomy--that he favored it--he submitted actual language that would keep the District open in case of a shutdown. I would like to submit that language for the record. The language referred to is as follows: Consistent with the principle of home rule, it is the Administration's view that the District's local budget should be authorized to take effect without a separate annual Federal appropriations bill. The Administration will work with Congress and the Mayor to pass legislation to amend the D.C. Home Rule Act to provide the District with local budget autonomy. When the President submits the language to the Congress, that puts a very special emphasis on the need for what he is asking for. Mr. Speaker, not only have you had the President and Mr. Issa; the majority leader of this body, Mr. Cantor, has indicated that he supports budget autonomy. His spokesman said that ``he is certainly willing to work with the District toward its goal of budget autonomy.'' That's the first time that a leader of my friends on the other side of the aisle has indicated public support for budget autonomy. This afternoon, I want to thank Mr. Cantor personally for doing so. Mr. Cantor may have been moved by his own Governor. The Republican Governor of Virginia, Governor Bob McDonnell, wrote to Majority Leader Cantor indicating that he supports budget autonomy for the District. One of the reasons he gave was that 100,000 Virginians come to the District of Columbia to work every day in the private and Federal sector, and that if the District government shuts down, those 100,000 residents from Virginia, who had nothing to do with this fight--just as the District of Columbia had nothing to do with the Federal fight--are seriously inconvenienced. The fact that these two Virginians from our region have spoken out speaks to the practical reality behind budget autonomy. In addition, the Governor of Virginia made it clear he did not see how the mayor of the District of Columbia could run his city when he could not be certain when his budget would be passed. Here you have one chief executive speaking to another, and both from different parties. The case we think, Mr. Speaker, has been made. It has been made here by the leadership of this body and the leadership of the Senate, and it has been made in the country as leaders have stepped forward to indicate that the rational thing to do, the American thing to do, if you will, is to respect the right of a local jurisdiction to spend its own local money without coming to a national body which has had nothing to do with raising those funds. If I could inquire, Mr. Speaker, how much time I have remaining?

Ms. NORTON. I want to summarize how much on the same page Democrats and Republicans are on the proposition that D.C. should control D.C.'s local budget. There's nothing radical about that one, my friends. It would be hard to go out in the street of your city or your county and get a different response. So it's not surprising, but it's very important to have these poll figures, which back up where Chairman Issa is trying to take us, where Mr. Cantor is trying to take us, where the Governor of Virginia is trying to take us, where D.C. officials, and, I hope, the Congress will come this year. The polls show very gratifying numbers, but they are numbers that reflect where Americans always are. Americans are, first, local people. They want to do as much locally as possible. They understand that there are national issues. They know that one of those issues is not their own local money. Mr. Speaker, this week, the District of Columbia celebrated D.C. Emancipation Day, and, of course, it's worthy of celebration, when this city was the first jurisdiction whose slaves were freed by Abraham Lincoln. Isn't it amazing that the Nation's capital had slavery in 1862? But it is very hard to celebrate Emancipation Day in the District of Columbia when your own local funds cannot be spent by your own local people. We raise about $6 billion in local funds. It is a very diverse city of people from all walks of life with all levels of income, and there is absolute agreement across all political lines that the one thing we deserve is budget autonomy. This year was the 150th anniversary of the liberation of slaves by Abraham Lincoln in the District of Columbia. We noted that the slaves had to be very grateful to be liberated because there was nothing they could do to liberate themselves. Armed struggle was certainly not possible for slaves here or anywhere else. Peaceful opposition to slavery would have brought armed struggle against their peaceful opposition, so they had to wait to be liberated. The people of the District of Columbia understand it is up to them to liberate themselves, but they, too, cannot free themselves entirely. They do not have a Member who has a vote on the floor of the United States Congress. I vote in committee. I do not have the right to vote for final passage of any legislation. Yet my residents have been in every war the Nation has fought since the Nation was created. We pay federal income taxes at the highest levels. We're second per capita in federal income taxes among the 50 States and the District of Columbia. So you can imagine that it is with some anguish that we send our own local budget to people we respect but people who have contributed nothing to the money we have raised in our city. I thank all who have supported us here in the Congress, and I look forward to the day, which I hope will be this year, when there will be budget autonomy for the District of Columbia. I yield back the balance of my time. ``The following is the actual proposal the president included in his fiscal year 2013 budget to prevent a D.C. government shutdown in the event of a federal government shutdown:'' Sec. 817. Section 446 of the Home Rule Act (D.C. Official Code sec. 1 204.46) is amended by adding the following at the end of its fourth sentence, before the period ``: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, effective for fiscal year 2013, and for each succeeding fiscal year, during a period in which there is an absence of a federal appropriations act authorizing the expenditure of District of Columbia local funds, the District of Columbia may obligate and expend local funds for programs and activities at the rate set forth in the Budget Request Act adopted by the Council, or a reprogramming adopted pursuant to this section.'' (Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2012.)

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, as we await a surface transportation bill, I rise to introduce a bill to reestablish a federal grant program for states that desire to develop racial profiling laws, collect and maintain data on traffic stops, design programs to reduce racial profiling, and train law enforcement officers, which I worked to get included in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA LU) in 2005. Despite the fact that the grant program was just a small piece of the very large SAFETEA LU bill, nearly half of the states participated in the program for multiple fiscal years. Racial profiling is a form of racial discrimination that is now back in the forefront of national concern because of the tragic killing of Trayvon Martin. Racial profiling on roads built with federal funds is a violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, because it amounts to a government subsidy of discrimination. However, while it remains a widespread problem in our country, there is little experience in developing legislation in this sensitive area to address racial profiling while allowing for appropriate law enforcement. My bill would help states to better develop their racial profiling laws and to help law enforcement understand what role racial profiling plays in traffic stops. My bill imposes no mandates on states. Instead, it simply authorizes a grant program, but does not require states to participate. However, it provides resources that many states and localities clearly need if they are to curb racial profiling.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, on Emancipation Day in the District of Columbia, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the 150th anniversary of President Lincoln's signing of the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act, which freed 3,100 slaves of African descent in the nation's capital. I have introduced a resolution today in honor of this historic day. The record should also reflect that the District of Columbia Council passed the following resolution in honor of the anniversary: A Ceremonial Resolution 19-207 In the Council of the District of Columbia March 6, 2012 To recognize and preserve the cultural history and heritage of the District of Columbia; to formally recognize the 150th anniversary of District of Columbia Emancipation Day on April 16, 2012, as an important day in the history of the District of Columbia and the United States in that, on April 16, 1862, 9 months before President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863 to begin to end institutionalized slavery in America, President Lincoln signed the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act to release the 3,100 enslaved persons of African descent held in the nation's capital, making them the ``first freed'' by the federal government, at a cost of nearly $1 million, in 1862 funds, paid to the people who enslaved them; to recognize that, after the Civil War, formerly enslaved people and others commemorated the signing of the 1862 act by parading down Pennsylvania Avenue in festive attire, with music and marching bands, proclaiming and celebrating freedom in the District of Columbia Emancipation Day Parade, which was received by every sitting President of the United States from 1866 to 1901; and to recognize that, on March 7, 2000, the Council of the District of Columbia voted unanimously to establish April 16th as a legal private holiday, the Emancipation Day Parade resumed in the nation's capital in 2002, and, on April 5, 2005, District of Columbia Emancipation Day was made a legal public holiday, recognized annually on April 16th. Whereas, on April 16, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act (``Emancipation Act'') during the Civil War; Whereas, the Emancipation Act provided for immediate emancipation of 3,100 enslaved men, women, and children of African descent held in bondage in the District of Columbia; Whereas, the Emancipation Act authorized compensation of up to $300 for each of the 3,100 enslaved men, women, and children held in bondage by those loyal to the Union, voluntary colonization of the formerly enslaved to colonies outside of America, and payments of up to $100 to each formerly enslaved person who agreed to leave America; Whereas, the Emancipation Act authorized the federal government to pay approximately $1 million, in 1862 funds, for the freedom of 3,100 enslaved men, women, and children of African descent in the District of Columbia; Whereas, the Emancipation Act ended the bondage of 3,100 enslaved men, women, and children of African descent in the District of Columbia, and made them the ``first freed'' by the federal government during the Civil War; Whereas, nine months after the signing of the Emancipation Act, on January 1, 1863, President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, to begin to end institutionalized enslavement of people of African descent in Confederate states; Whereas, on April 9, 1865, the Confederacy surrendered, marking the beginning of the end of the Civil War, and on August 20, 1866, President Andrew Johnson signed a Proclamation Declaring that Peace, Order, Tranquility and Civil Authority Now Exists in and Throughout the Whole of the United States of America; Whereas, in December 1865, the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified establishing that ``Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction''; Whereas, in April 1866, to commemorate the signing of the Emancipation Act, the formerly enslaved people and others, in festive attire, with music and marching bands, started an annual tradition of parading down Pennsylvania Avenue, proclaiming and celebrating the anniversary of their freedom; Whereas, the District of Columbia Emancipation Day Parade was received by every sitting President of the United States from 1866 to 1901; Whereas, on March 7, 2000, at the Twenty Seventh Legislative Session of the Council of the District of Columbia, Councilmember Vincent B. Orange, Sr. (D Ward 5) authored and introduced, with Carol Schwartz (R At Large), the historic District of Columbia Emancipation Day Amendment Act of 2000, effective April 3, 2001 (D.C. Law 13 237; D.C. Official Code 1 612.02a, 32 1201), and on that same date moved an emergency version of the legislation that established April 16th as a legal private holiday; Whereas, the District of Columbia Emancipation Day Emergency Amendment Act of 2000, which established April 16th as a legal private holiday, was passed unanimously by the Council on March 7, 2000, and signed into law on March 22, 2000 by Mayor Anthony A. Williams; Whereas, on April 16, 2000, to properly preserve the historical and cultural significance of the District of Columbia Emancipation Day, Councilmember Orange hosted a celebration program in the historic 15th Street Presbyterian Church, founded in 1841 as the First Colored Presbyterian Church; Whereas, on April 16, 2002, after a 100 year absence, the District of Columbia, spearheaded by Councilmember Orange with the support of Mayor Anthony Williams, returned the Emancipation Day Parade to Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., along with public activities on Freedom Plaza and evening fireworks (D.C. Official Code 1 182); Whereas, the District of Columbia Emancipation Day Parade and Fund Act of 2004, effective March 17, 2005 (D.C. Law 15 240; D.C. Official Code 1 181 et seq.), established the Emancipation Day Fund to receive and disburse monies for the Emancipation Day Parade and activities associated with the celebration and commemoration of the District of Columbia Emancipation Day; Whereas, the District of Columbia Emancipation Day Amendment Act of 2004, effective April 5, 2005 (D.C. Law 15 288; D.C. Official Code 1 612.02(a)(11)), established April 16th as a legal public holiday; Whereas, on April 16, 2005, District of Columbia Emancipation Day was observed for the first time as a legal public holiday, for the purpose of pay and leave of employees scheduled to work on that day (D.C. Official Code 1 612.02(c)(2)); Whereas, April 16, 2012, is the 150th anniversary of District of Columbia Emancipation Day, which symbolizes the triumph of people of African descent over the cruelty of institutionalized slavery and the goodwill of people opposed to the injustice of slavery in a democracy; Whereas, the Council of the District of Columbia remembers and pays homage to the millions of people of African descent enslaved for more than 2 centuries in America for their courage and determination; Whereas, the Council of the District of Columbia remembers and pays homage to President Abraham Lincoln for his courage and determination to begin to end the inhumanity and injustice of institutionalized slavery by signing the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act on April 16, 1862; Whereas, the alignment of the (1) election of the first African-American President of the United States, Barack H. Obama; (2) dedication of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial; (3) groundbreaking for the National Museum of African American History and Culture; (4) 150th anniversary of the District of Columbia Emancipation Day; and (5) 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 2013, are historically important for the District of Columbia and for the United States; and Whereas, the 150th anniversary of District of Columbia Emancipation Day is a singularly important occasion that links the historic Presidency of Abraham Lincoln with the equally historic Presidency of Barack H. Obama, as the first President of the United States of African descent. Resolved, by the Council of the District of Columbia, That this resolution may be cited as the ``District of Columbia Emancipation Day--150th Anniversary Recognition Resolution of 2012''. Sec. 2. The Council of the District of Columbia finds the 150th anniversary of District of Columbia Emancipation Day is an important, historic occasion for the District of Columbia and the nation and serves as an appropriate time to reflect on how far the District of Columbia and the United States have progressed since institutionalized enslavement of people of African descent. Most importantly, the 150th anniversary reminds us to reaffirm our commitment to forge a more just and united country that truly reflects the ideals of its founders and instills in its people a broad sense of duty to be responsible and conscientious stewards of freedom and democracy. Sec. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon the first date of publication in the District of Columbia Register.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Well, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I did not know of the Emancipation Day of the Virgin Islands. I reciprocate and want to know more about the Virgin Islands' Emancipation Day. I want to thank the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands who handles these Special Orders for the Congressional Black Caucus on the floor, for the time and effort you have given this evening. I want to thank my colleagues who have come down so far for this hour. You've just heard from my good friend, the Congresswoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee). I thank her for her remarks, and I thank her, as well, for mentioning Emancipation Day here in the District of Columbia, where thousands of residents marched down Pennsylvania Avenue today to claim the rights that every constituent of every Member who pays taxes in the United States already enjoys. I know that I speak for the District when I thank all of you. And when I say that John Payton was a very, very devoted Washingtonian who would have particularly appreciated Emancipation Day today, I thank Congresswoman Barbara Lee, whose words always are important to hear as she probes the issues of the hour, and especially what she had to say tonight about John Payton. My condolences, first, to my good friend, Gay McDougall, John's wife, and to his siblings and his family. A memorial service was held today, so it's fitting that we should be able to get this hour to say a few words in tribute. I would like to devote my words to both the man and the lawyer. John was my constituent and my friend. It's important to get a feel for the man. If I may inquire how much time we have remaining in this hour?

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, there have been only six leaders of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund since Thurgood Marshall first went on the bench. You can imagine what quality of lawyer it takes to fill the role that Thurgood Marshall had at the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. John Payton was worthy of the role, worthy to become the sixth leader of the Legal Defense Fund. If one looks at John's professional credentials, you would have thought that's enough of a life for a man, considering particularly that he is an African American who went to college and law school when blacks were only beginning to be admitted to the best colleges and law schools in the country. Before his life was over--much too early--John had been listed on this decade's list of most distinguished lawyers in our country. He had been president of the District of Columbia Bar. John's life and work, of course, are etched in important Supreme Court cases. However, we, in the District of Columbia, feel especially the loss of John Payton because John Payton was--what was called Corporation Counsel is now called Attorney General of the District of Columbia. He took that post when he was asked by the Mayor to leave private practice in order to become the lead lawyer in the District of Columbia. To understand John, though, one has to see how this extraordinary man melded his love of the law--including private practice--with the love of his professional life, civil rights. It's clear that John laid down an early marker for what his life would become, that it would be a life dedicated to eliminating racial discrimination. John went to Pomona College in 1965 when these colleges were just admitting talented African Americans. He found himself at an elite private college surrounded only by people who were not at all like him--they were like him in many ways, but certainly not from his racial background. There were very few African Americans in his college and in the five colleges in Claremont, California, that group of very fine private colleges. So, John began early, right in college, to lobby the administration to recruit more African American students. And of course he wanted a black studies program because he saw that perhaps one of the reasons that there was so little interest in black students is there was too little appreciation for the role of African Americans in our history, so he lobbied for that too. He pressed the admissions people to in fact recruit more African Americans. And he lobbied so hard the college asked him to take the job. So John, after he insisted that more African Americans be recruited, took the job himself and delayed going to law school. That was John Payton. He went on to Harvard Law School, but he couldn't leave behind his dedication to human rights. He got involved in the very famous-- infamous, one might say--school busing controversy in Boston. While he was a law student, he found himself taking affidavits from black students who were injured because of racial violence in Boston. In law school, he joined the editorial board of the Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review. You see the theme developing in John's life. Of course, many students have these themes, and we're pleased that they have them when they do, but there's nothing that says you've got to devote your life to any particular cause, and particularly if you're an African American and experiencing the first opportunities to, for example, join private law firms. John did just that. He went on to practice corporate law here in Washington, D.C. at a prestigious law firm when it was rare for blacks to practice privately at elite law firms. He moved up to head litigation in his law firm. And then he did something that describes how John Payton put together all of the ingredients of the life of a man of the law: he took leave from the law firm to become Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia. He recognized that he had been taking civil rights cases as a private lawyer pro bono, and, yes, he could come and serve his city as the lead counsel. He met his wife, an Africa expert, interestingly enough, when he was monitoring elections in South Africa. And that was, as my good friend from Texas has said, a meeting that was made in heaven, perhaps--and she did not say it that way, I say it that way--because it's one of those wonderful marriages which bring together people of like heart and like mind. John, of course, will be remembered for his work in many ways at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. For example, John continued to take the Legal Defense Fund along the road it had traveled so well as lead law firm and lead litigator for civil rights in our country; but he recognized that the Legal Defense Fund had already won many of the most important cases and that, therefore, the fund had to stay relevant, stay current. To quote him, when asked about whether he thought the problems of African Americans could be solved through litigation, he said: I'd say we have a litigation focus, and some of our focus is not litigation. With some things, you want to achieve a solution without filing a lawsuit. You can go to the relevant entities, a school board or mayor, and suggest a solution without having to file a lawsuit. Here is a man who brought from private practice problem-solving of many varieties, just the man for the Legal Defense Fund in this era. Of course, John Payton will be remembered for cases of great importance. Sometimes the case needed a lawyer with such a fine technical sense of the law that all of the civil rights, issues revolved around whether you could find a lawyer whose mind was fine enough to tackle such an issue. Lewis v. City of Chicago was such a case where African American firefighters filed a lawsuit charging discrimination by the city against African American firefighters. The city conceded that it had given an examination which had a disparate effect on minorities in violation of Supreme Court cases, but it argued a statute of limitations issue, that therefore John Payton and his African American plaintiffs could not continue. It took a lawyer--a lawyer's lawyer--to take that case, argue that statute of limitations issue, go before the Supreme Court and get this Supreme Court to unanimously reverse the lower court, which had found that the statute of limitations voided the case. Today, one of the core sections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is under attack. If that law goes down, we will be set back 50 years. It's the core provision of the Voting Rights Act that requires States which have engaged in intentional voting discrimination in the past to bring all of their voting laws--laws that impact voting rights--so that they can be pre-cleared by the Justice Department before they go into effect. Northwest Austin Municipal Utility v. Holder was such a case, 8 1 decision upholding section 5. It is impossible to overemphasize how important John Payton's victory was in sustaining this core provision of the Voting Rights Act. He did it and won a great victory for civil rights. John Payton also was lead counsel in a case that is still very much discussed, a case, like a similar case that is going before the Supreme Court this very year. I'm speaking of the University of Michigan case, where the plaintiff sought to eliminate affirmative action in higher education, in both law and undergraduate schools. There was great trepidation that much of the progress that had been made over 25 years would end prematurely. John handled these cases in the lower courts and argued the cases at the Supreme Court as well. The Court upheld the use of race as a factor, one factor, not the only factor, and affirmative action in higher education was saved. I also would like to submit for the Record a piece written by a colleague and friend of John Payton, Joshua Wyner, W-Y-N-E-R. Joshua Wyner wrote a short piece after John Payton died which details one occasion that summarizes the principled nature of John's life. He was on the board of an organization called Appleseed, which does good works for the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia had a financial control board during a period when the city was going through a financial crisis. The control board took control of the D.C. Board of Education. The D.C. Board of Education had a terrible reputation. Its members engaged in infighting in order to keep half-empty schools open, for example, and all agreed the Board had done little for education in the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining? I want to leave some time for my colleague.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the control board reached out to take control of the board of education. It had control of virtually every other arm of the D.C. government. But John Payton and the board of Appleseed knew that the law which set up the control board gave it no authority to take over the board of education. It was an elected body. What to do? Appleseed very much opposed the board of education. Yet, the control board had done an illegal act, except nobody knew it but technical lawyers or people who paid attention to the fine letter of the law. The Appleseed board engaged in the appropriate debate as to whether it should sue the control board for illegal action in taking over the board of education. John Payton cast the deciding vote for the lawsuit, and he did so because, he said, he did not want to be part of an organization that failed to stand for the rule of law. Note how John Payton handled this dilemma. He knew that the board of education didn't stand by the children. What he did, as a member of the Appleseed board, was to settle the case, ultimately returning power to the school board, and then went to work restructuring school governance, giving governance to the Mayor and eliminating the board of education. So you see what John did. He stood for principle on both occasions. He found a principled way to keep the control board from exceeding its authority, illegally, and he found a principled way to eliminate the D.C. school board without using illegal means. That is the principled life that John Payton lived. That is why he has left a vacuum in this city where he lived and in the law which he loved. He said he never regretted leaving corporate law. Remember, while he practiced it, he was also doing pro bono cases for civil rights. But he never regretted leaving private practice, he said, because the best possible job for a man like John Payton was the job he had when he died. John Payton said, on the 70th anniversary of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, when everybody was joyful, as well they might have been, for there is no organization that has done more for human rights in our country than the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF). While celebrating the LDF John Payton, its president, its director counsel, said, It's a mistake to celebrate too much about things accomplished when we see that some of the progress has been very uneven. John was a man of great balance. He understood that, as he said, that African Americans had made extraordinary progress in the 70 years since the NAACP Legal Defense Fund was established, but that what had led him to civil rights in the first place continued and must continue to drive us. The best way that we can remember our friend, his work, and the man himself is to understand that what he would want us to do is to find a way to help complete the work he was about at the end of his life. His inspiration to young lawyers, his inspiration well beyond the law was so significant that I say to my good friend from the Virgin Islands that I believe that we will have no hesitation, we will find no hesitation in the larger community in seeking to do all we can to continue the work that was the center of the life of John Payton. We celebrate that extraordinary life today. We celebrate a great life in American law. We celebrate a great Washingtonian. We celebrate all that John did and was as a man. We mourn his early passing. We celebrate and are grateful that in the time given to him he accomplished so very much. [From the Washington Post, Mar. 30, 2012] John Payton's Life of Principle (By Joshua Wyner) John Payton, who died March 22, was a great friend not only to our nation but also to the place he called home the District of Columbia. To his local and national work, John brought an incredible combination of brilliant thought, deep commitment to principle and unswerving dedication to improving the lives of those who most needed help. Everyone who loves Washington should take a moment to observe this tremendous loss and remember a great man. I met John in late 1995, when he and the other four members of the original D.C. Appleseed Center board hired me as executive director of the nonprofit, which works to solve pressing problems facing the city. At the end of Appleseed's first full and quite successful year, the organization faced an enormous dilemma--one that could have sent the organization down the wrong path. The triggering event took place in November 1996, when the congressionally created financial control board took over the District's public school system. With fiscal management of the city improving, everyone committed to bettering the city knew that ground zero for reform had to be the District of Columbia Public Schools, where few kids received the education they needed to succeed in life. There was no evidence that the D.C. Board--of Education which was better known for fighting to keep open half-empty school buildings in members' wards than for acting to improve curriculum or teaching--could attract, hire or retain a superintendent who could lead needed reforms. Yet the control board's takeover was almost certainly illegal. The structure of the school board was written into the city charter, which also contains provisions for how the charter itself can be amended. Nothing in the law authorizing the control board allowed it to change the charter. Appleseed had a choice: Give in to urgency and follow the straightest path to reform or stand for principle and fight an illegal action by an unelected body. After a lengthy debate, the Appleseed board chose--by a single vote--to sue the control board to reverse the takeover. John cast the deciding vote. He knew from his days as D.C. corporation counsel that desperately needed reform almost certainly would not be led by the school board. But he also made emphatically clear that he (I still recall his words) ``would not be part of an organization that failed to stand for the rule of law.'' Appleseed filed suit and eventually settled with the control board, which returned power over the school system to the school board. Then Appleseed began a project to properly change the governance of the schools. Our research and advocacy helped pave the way for the enactment of a law-- approved by referendum--to fundamentally restructure school governance, including a sunset clause that ultimately led to the mayor's assuming responsibility for DCPS. In the end, our city benefited more than would have been possible had the control board succeeded, because the structural change that took place ultimately led to improvements in student outcomes that have long outlived the control board. Originally opposed to the lawsuit, I learned a great lesson from John (and his colleague Alan Morrison, who filed the lawsuit): Successful pathways to needed reforms can and must be grounded in principle. I had the great privilege of working with John in recent months on a project to improve our nation's community colleges, where so many of the African American students that John cared deeply about are trying to gain the skills they need to succeed in life. As with everything else he worked on, he asked (and helped answer) the tough questions, demanded adherence to principle and pushed toward solutions that would improve the lives of vulnerable Americans. Our city and nation are much better off for John's time here. His presence will be missed, but it will also endure in the many people whom he showed how to find thoughtful solutions to persistent problems and ground those solutions in principle.