Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The American people will be puzzled by why we can't get out what has traditionally been the most popular bill, the transportation bill. And they will hope that we're not on a road to the 20-plus extensions that we had with the FAA bill. It won't do to say, like two kids: You did it, too; therefore, we can do it. None of us should have done it. But in any case, we know we don't have to do it this time because the Senate has passed a bill that we could pass as well. So we know the compromise can happen because they've passed a bill with more than two- thirds of their own house, including many Republicans, signing on. Compromise is possible if you believe in compromise, and I'm afraid that this bill shows that we have a majority that does not. They are on record saying that they must have 218 votes from their caucus alone. That says to the American people, we need to pass a bill that will have only people from our party voting for it. But, the Senate has passed a bill with both parties compromising. Which is the party that does not believe in compromise? You always have to compromise. There is not a whole lot of difference in the amount of money in these bills; $52 billion per year for the House, $54 billion per year for the Senate. The problem is poison pills. The problem is not treating the transportation bill as it has always been treated, as a bipartisan bill. The problem is not caring that you are effecting the recovery if you pass a series of 90-day bills. We should be speeding the recovery instead of hanging, clinging to a bill that would kill half a million jobs. It's time to compromise. This side is holding out its hand for a compromise. We need colleagues on the other side to hold out theirs.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, as the cherry blossom season begins, bringing thousands of Americans here, I rise to reintroduce the United States Commission on an Open Society with Security Act of 2012. The bill expresses an idea I began working on when the first signs of the closing of parts of our open society appeared after the Oklahoma City bombing, well before 9/11. This bill grows more urgent as an increasing variety of security measures proliferate throughout the country without any thought about the effects on common freedoms and ordinary public access, and without any guidance from the government or elsewhere. Take the example of government buildings. Federal building security has gotten so out of control that a tourist passing by a Federal building cannot even get in to use the restroom or enjoy the many restaurants located in areas otherwise devoid of such amenities. The security for Federal buildings has too long resided only in the hands of non-security experts, who do not take into account actual threats and, as a result, spend lavish amounts of taxpayer dollars on needless security procedures. For example, several years ago, Government Accountability Office investigators carried bomb-making materials into 10 high-security Federal buildings and then assembled them in the bathrooms. This scandal shines a light on the failure to use risk-based assessments in the allocation of resources. The bill I reintroduce today would begin a systematic investigation that fully takes into account the importance of maintaining our democratic traditions while responding adequately to the real and substantial threat that terrorism poses. To accomplish its difficult mission, the bill authorizes a 21-member commission, with the President designating nine members and the House and Senate each designating six members, to investigate the balance of openness and security. The commission would be composed not only of military and security experts, but, for the first time, they would be at the same table with experts from such fields as business, architecture, technology, law, city planning, art, engineering, philosophy, history, sociology, and psychology. To date, questions of security most often have been left almost exclusively to security and military experts. They are indispensable participants, but these experts cannot alone resolve all the new and unprecedented issues raised by terrorism in an open society. In order to strike the security/access balance required by our democratic traditions, a diverse group of experts needs to be at the same table. For years, parts of our open society have gradually been closed down because of terrorism and the fear of terrorism, from checkpoints on streets near the Capitol, even when there are no alerts, to applications of technology without regard to their effects on privacy. Following the unprecedented terrorist attack on our country on 9/11, Americans expected additional and increased security adequate to protect citizens against this frightening threat. However, in our country, people also expect government to be committed and smart enough to undertake this awesome new responsibility without depriving them of their personal liberty. These times will long be remembered for the rise of terrorism in the world and in this country and the unprecedented challenges it has brought. We must provide ever-higher levels of security for our people and public spaces while maintaining a free and open democratic society. Yet this is no ordinary threat that we expect to be over in a matter of years. The end point could be generations from now. The indeterminate nature of the threat adds to the necessity of putting aside ad hoc approaches to security developed in isolation from the goal of maintaining an open society. When we have faced unprecedented and perplexing issues in the past, we have had the good sense to investigate them deeply before moving to resolve them. Examples include the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission), the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (also known as the Silberman-Robb Commission), and the Kerner Commission, which investigated the riots that swept American cities in the 1960s and 1970s. The important difference in this bill is that the Commission seeks to act before a crisis-level erosion of basic freedoms takes hold and becomes entrenched. Because global terrorism is likely to be long lasting, we cannot afford to allow the proliferation of security measures that neither requires nor is subject to advanced civilian oversight, or analysis of alternatives and repercussions on freedom and commerce. With no vehicles for leadership on issues of security and openness, we have been left to muddle through, using blunt 19th century approaches, such as crude blockades, unsightly barriers around beautiful monuments, and other signals that our society is closing down, all without appropriate exploration of possible alternatives. The threat of terrorism to an open society is too serious to be left to ad hoc problem-solving. Such approaches are often as inadequate as they are menacing. We can do better, but only if we recognize and come to grips with the complexities associated with maintaining a society of free and open access in a world characterized by unprecedented terrorism. The place to begin is with a high-level commission of experts from a broad array of disciplines to help chart the new course that will be required to protect our people and our precious democratic institutions and traditions.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I want to thank the gentlelady from New York for the consistent leadership she has given to this important legislation since it was passed. It took us a number of years to get it passed in the first place, and it's never been off her radar screen. I especially want to thank my good friend from Wisconsin, who has come forward in a very compelling way to ask that we vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can consider the Violence Against Women Act, which may well expire, making it--I fear--a real target for the Appropriations Committee because the law will not have been reauthorized. Mr. Speaker, I visited a safe house last week in my district because I wanted to hear why a woman would make the decision to stay at home with an abuser rather than leave. I'm not sure I understood in my heart why she would assume the risk rather than leave. I'm glad I went. There were eight women there, different ages. Some had children. For the first time, when I heard the stories of these women, I understood in the most poignant and practical way what a ``hotline'' actually means, what a ``rape crisis center'' means. After that experience, the notion that when this legislation expires, the Appropriations Committee would have before it unauthorized appropriations, which become a target in and of itself, was just too much to bear. Yet the reauthorization bill has gone nowhere here. At least in the other body, the bill has been passed out of committee. It is a bipartisan bill, with several Republicans as well as Democrats on it. Ms. Moore's amendment essentially does no more than incorporate the Senate bill, which is tailor-made for our consideration, because in keeping with the way in which reductions are taking place--20 percent is very painful--but there is a 20 percent reduction in the reauthorized act, even though with any reauthorization you would expect an increase. Yet even with that reduction, we cannot get the bill on this floor. So we must do what we're doing this afternoon. If you want to talk about a bill that is worth the money, there are very few bills where we can show the kind of cause-and-effect that we can show here. There has been a 50 percent drop annually in domestic violence. And the reason for that is there's been over a 50 percent increase in reporting. Women are not afraid to come out because they know that if they report it, go to the police station, the police will tell them where there is a safe house. Don't leave women out on the streets. Don't leave their children with no place to go. Vote ``no'' on the previous question in order to allow the House to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, which I think would receive bipartisan support if it were heard this afternoon.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Van Hollen for his brilliant and balanced work on the budget. Shakespeare's sonnet says, ``Let me count the ways.'' I am finding it difficult to count the reasons to oppose the Republicans' unbalanced, no-growth budget that threatens to send us back into a recession. But when the tightest fist in the Federal Government, the OMB, says that the Republican budget would, and here I'm quoting, make it ``extraordinarily difficult for the Federal Government to do its basic business,'' I listen. The Federal Government, Mr. Chairman, is labor intensive. When the OMB says that there will be 4,500 fewer Federal agents on the border, working criminal cases and performing national security, I listen. When the OMB says we won't be able to meet basic standards for food safety, I am listening. We simply cannot keep freezing pay for Federal employees, which amounts to deep cuts or replace every three with only one employee and expect to continue protecting the American people at the same time. The Republican budget kicks Federal employees while they are down and kicks their vital work right along with them. It guarantees the growth of the unaccountable contractor sector, which remains untouched in the Republican budget. So much for the phantom savings at the expense of Federal employees.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the National Cherry Blossom Festival and the Centennial Celebration, commemorating the 100-year anniversary of the gift of trees and the enduring friendship between the United States and Japan. Each year, the National Cherry Blossom Festival heralds the coming of spring and produces diverse and creative programming promoting traditional and contemporary arts and culture, natural beauty, and community spirit, showcasing the best of Washington, DC to the world. More than one hundred years ago, the combined vision of unlikely partners led to the world-renowned majestic cherry trees that line the Tidal Basin in our nation's capital. Eliza Scidmore, the National Geographic Society's first female board member, Dr. David Fairchild of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, First Lady Helen Herron Taft, Mayor Yukio Ozaki of Tokyo, and Dr. Jokichi Takamine, goodwill ambassador, world-famous chemist, and the founder of Sankyo Co., Ltd. (today known as Daiichi Sankyo), all worked together to bestow Washington, DC with more than 3,000 cherry trees in 1912. This gesture of goodwill was honored in a simple ceremony on March 27, 1912, when First Lady Taft and Viscountess Chinda, wife of the Japanese ambassador, planted the first two trees at the Tidal Basin. Today, the trees are a national treasure enjoyed by millions, and, as First Lady Taft envisioned, a wonderful backdrop for cultural and community events of all kinds. Today, the National Cherry Blossom Festival unites the region for over one million visitors each spring, who look forward to signature events like the National Cherry Blossom Festival Parade, world-class entertainment, cultural performances and more, primarily free and open to the public. Our Nation's greatest cultural institutions participate, including the National Gallery of Art, The Kennedy Center, and Smithsonian, with over 50 area organizations participating in total. The National Cherry Blossom Festival greatly benefits the nation's capital. The Festival generates over $126 million annually for Washington, DC, and has received many accolades and international recognition. Among the many special commemorative initiatives to mark the historic Centennial Celebration, the Government of Japan has designated the Centennial Celebration an official anniversary event. The United States Postal Service has issued Cherry Blossom Centennial Forever stamps, and the American Bus Association has named the Centennial Celebration the top event for group travel in 2012. Millions of people have enjoyed the National Cherry Blossom Festival, and millions will continue to create cherished memories here in the years to come. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the work of the National Cherry Blossom Festival and the message of peace, friendship, and international understanding it carries on each year during the Nation's greatest springtime celebration.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for leading this Special Order for our good friend and colleague, Donald Payne, whose passing leaves me shocked and deeply saddened after his 12 terms of outstanding service in the House of Representatives. Don was a friend. He was more than a colleague. He was the kind of friend you could always strike up a conversation with about matters technical or just matters at hand because Don was easy of manner but strong of conviction. Don was a real path breaker and history maker. He came to Congress as the first African American to serve in Congress from the State of New Jersey. He followed the great Peter Rodino, who had served Newark for decades. Newark had become a majority African American city, but Don grew up in a neighborhood that was as Italian as it was black and felt comfortable with people of all ethnic groups. When Congressman Rodino, who was then chair of the House Judiciary Committee, retired--this was, of course, before I came to Congress, but it was much commented upon--Don, who had run against him several times and was the logical person to win that seat, plunged into his work for a city that needed a man of his depth of understanding and conviction of their problems, their education, their health care, their housing needs. For Newark, when the Congressman came here 12 terms ago, personified, symbolized the great urban communities of our country and the upheavals that they were undergoing. He plunged into that work, and yet he was able, at the same time, to become perhaps the House's most expert Member on Africa and the Caribbean. Don was a leader on Africa, who did not work from the newspapers or the journals, but traveled the continent and came back with firsthand information. For the Congressional Black Caucus, Don was the go-to man. Nobody from the caucus moved on a matter affecting Africa without going to Don first. Go to the expert first, find out if you're on the right foot, and then perhaps move forward. Don was rigorous in his evaluation of the leadership of the various countries of Africa. He never withheld when an African leader needed the strong criticism of the United States and his own strong criticism. Thus, his leadership was trusted all across the Congress when he stepped forward with his views. He worked with every President because Republican and Democratic Presidents alike have been involved in the issues affecting Africa; and they, like us, turned to Don on those issues. Where will we find such a Member today? Is there such a Member who has devoted so much of his life not only to urban America, but especially to Africa, who knew everything, knew everyone, and knew anything we needed to know? Don will be greatly missed by this Chamber. He will always be remembered. I know I speak for us all when I say that his family has our deepest sympathy and our everlasting love.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1710 and am pleased to speak in support of the bill that names the United States courthouse located at 222 West Seventh Avenue in Anchorage, Alaska, as the James M. Fitzgerald United States Courthouse. Judge James Martin Fitzgerald is considered one of the founding fathers of law in the State of Alaska. He dedicated his life to public service and was well respected throughout the Alaskan legal community. Judge Fitzgerald was a World War II veteran, serving in both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marines. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and an Air Medal for his military service and was honorably discharged in December 1946. After his military service, Judge Fitzgerald earned his LL.B. and B.A. simultaneously from Willamette University and graduated in 1951. Soon after graduation, Judge Fitzgerald was appointed as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Ketchikan, Alaska, and Anchorage, Alaska, earning a reputation as a prosecutor willing to take on corruption in law enforcement. In 1959, he was appointed by the governor of Alaska as the legal counsel for the State, and shortly thereafter was appointed as the State's first commissioner of public safety. Judge Fitzgerald was later appointed as a Superior Court judge in 1959 and in 1972 to the Alaska Supreme Court. In 1975, President Gerald Ford appointed Judge Fitzgerald as the first district judge for the District of Alaska. Nine years later, Judge Fitzgerald was appointed chief judge for the District of Alaska, where he served until he assumed senior status in 1989. Judge Fitzgerald continued to serve as a judge in Alaska and on the Ninth Circuit until his death on April 3, 2011. In total, Judge Fitzgerald spent 53 years on the bench. Because Judge Fitzgerald took on his first judicial appointment the same year as Alaska achieved statehood, he had a unique role in shaping all Alaskan jurisprudence. Because of Judge Fitzgerald's service as a member of the U.S. military and his contribution to the Alaskan and the U.S. legal community, it is appropriate to designate the United States courthouse located in Anchorage, Alaska, as the James M. Fitzgerald United States Courthouse. I commend my colleague from Alaska who sponsored this bill for his recognition of the judge, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I come to the floor today to begin a series of half-hour conversations containing information that I believe many Members of our House simply do not have, especially considering how often the Constitution and the Framers are cited. I have no reason to believe that there is any intention on the part of any Member to deny democracy to any American citizen in our great country. So during these half-hour Special Orders, I will be offering some evidence and information that go back to the Framers and come forward into the era when the District of Columbia was granted home rule in order to try to inform Members of the standing of the District of Columbia, which is often referred to as the ``Federal district.'' It, of course, is not a Federal district. It is a hometown of more than 600,000 residents, which has been granted full and complete authority to govern itself--too late, of course, but finally. It was too late in this era, but not too late in the history of the country because, as the country began, the citizens, indeed, at that time had that right. The Framers, of course, were confronted with a dilemma. They wanted a capital to be located here in the District of Columbia, and they wanted that capital to have the same rights as any other Americans. They had had an experience in Philadelphia of some concern, when veterans had marched on that capital, about who would defend the capital. They tried to sort out this dilemma and thought they had by creating the District of Columbia--whose residents would have the same rights as every other American citizen, but giving the Congress authority over the District. Let me indicate how that happened. No one who has any knowledge of the history of our country can believe that the Framers fought against taxation without representation for everybody except the people who happened to live in the Nation's Capital. That would be sacrilege to say that of the great Framers of the Constitution, particularly since people from this very area, now known as the District of Columbia, went to war on the slogan of ``no taxation without representation'' and fought and died under that slogan. They didn't go and die under that slogan so that everybody but themselves could be freed from England and have full democracy. It is also clear from looking at the Constitution that there were two Maryland and two Virginia signers who made clear that in the land they gave to the District of Columbia they weren't giving away their citizens' rights. So their citizens in Maryland and Virginia, during the 10-year transition period, in fact, voted for Members of this body and had the right to vote in Maryland and Virginia. Some would call what Congress has done in the intervening years an abuse of power. I believe it is a failure to come to grips with what the Framers intended. In Federalist 43, James Madison says from the very beginning that there would be ``a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages.'' That's, of course, the man and the document we rely on when we need some legislative history about the Constitution. It is very important to note that the first government in the city of Washington was established in 1802 when the District of Columbia became the Nation's Capital. At that point, contemporaneous with the Constitution, there was a city council elected by the people of the District of Columbia to fully govern this city the way the districts and the jurisdictions of the Members of this body are fully governed. In 1812, the city council was permitted to elect the mayor. Before that, the mayor was appointed. In 1820 and thereafter, the mayor was elected by the people. That continued until 1871. It should be said that the status of the District of Columbia, until home rule was granted, was constantly a part of the mix, the long, tortured part of our history about racial segregation. Many of the perpetrators who denied home rule were Southern Democrats. It was only when a Southern Democrat who chaired the ``District Committee'' was defeated, after the Voting Rights Act was passed, that the District was granted home rule in 1973. So this has not been a matter of party. If anything, the Republican Party had much cleaner hands until recently when, for its own purposes, it adopted the posture of deciding that there would be home rule when it wanted and that violates every standard, every principle of the Framers and Founders when members simply step in and try to abolish democratic policy and laws enacted by a local government to which they are not accountable. It's important to note that when the Home Rule Act was passed in 1973, the first line said that the purpose was to ``restore'' to the citizens of the District of Columbia, ``restore''. Those words, I think, were chosen with great meaning and understanding of history, ``restore'' because it was clear that the people who lived in this city had every right of every other American citizen before the city was created, that those from Maryland, Virginia, who gave the land, saw to it that these rights were preserved. Only in the political maneuverings of the Congress itself has that right been at risk, but that right has never been at risk except for Members of Congress who did not adhere to the principles of full democracy for every citizen of the United States. The purpose of the Home Rule Act was to restore, not to create, rights. Congress can not create rights for people born in this country. The rights are given with their citizenship. Now the District of Columbia, if one looks at the Home Rule Act, and the trends of all of the legislation preceding the Home Rule Act, was never given partial home rule except when Members of Congress from other jurisdictions decide they want to make changes in the District. That is found nowhere in the Home Rule Act, and that flies in the face of every principle of those who created the United States of America and those who died under the slogan of ``no taxation without representation.'' We created a very diverse democracy, and we have held it together through a principle of local deference and local control. We have people in one part of the country who detest some of the laws and policies in another part of the country, but the first thing they will do is honor local control and the right of local citizens to elect people who are accountable to them. When those who are not accountable to them want to get something done they must go to those who are, indeed, accountable to them. Congress thought about what enacting home rule would mean. It said, there are some specific exceptions. Congress did not leave it to the discretion of Members of this body to decide what those exceptions would be. Congress, in fact, did something very specific with respect to those exceptions because it understood that once home rule is granted, there would be differences between the local legislature and the Congress of the United States. So it said, this is what we mean, and this is what we do not mean. These limitations on the District and its council need to be rehearsed and need to be understood by anybody who believes in democracy as a principle here in the United States, as much as we believed in it when all of us stood up for democracy in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East and around the world. We have got to make sure that we're not seen as hypocrites since we are the first to rise when there is democracy that is ignored elsewhere, and appear to deny it in our own country. That is something the world will never understand. The Congress, recognizing the differences, spelled out what the exceptions would be, and you can imagine why the exceptions were there. They have almost nothing to do with anything that a local legislature would want to enact. Occasionally they do, and the District simply cannot do it because it's in the Home Rule Act, and the District does not do it because it's in the Home Rule Act. For example, the District of Columbia cannot impose any tax on the property of the United States or any of the several States. Well, that's important because the property that is most valuable, the property that would yield the most revenue, is located in the center, the monumental core of the capital, and the District of Columbia would not have a thing to worry about if it could tax that property. It cannot be done. The District of Columbia cannot lend the public credit, the credit of the local jurisdiction, for support of any private undertaking. The District cannot impose any tax, partial or whole, on the personal income of individuals who are not residents of the District of Columbia. Now, I emphasize that one, because that's one that local citizens particularly resent. It's a ban on a commuter tax. What it means is, if you come into the District of Columbia to work, as hundreds of thousands do from the surrounding region, use the resources, the roads, partake of the same public amenities that residents do, nevertheless, said the Home Rule Act, the District of Columbia may not impose any commuter tax. Well, the District, of course, resents that because there are commuter taxes all over the United States. But the District isn't asking to overturn the Home Rule Act; it's simply asking the Congress abide by the Home Rule Act. Maybe at some point Congress would want to reconsider this matter. I think my good friends of both parties from Maryland and Virginia would not want this matter reconsidered. At the moment, I haven't heard anyone say out that this is the reason that you find people in the District of Columbia engaging in civil disobedience. It is when Congress intervenes into the local affairs of the District of Columbia. Yes, the commuter tax is a local matter, but it involves other Americans. The Home Rule Act says Congress wants you to have as much--I'm trying to be fair--those who wrote it would say, we want you to have as much jurisdiction, as much authority over your own business as you can. Once you go to taxing those from another region, well, we are going to draw the line. Well, the District resents it, but there is at least a theory for why that was done. There is no theory for trying to overturn a law of the District of Columbia simply because you disagree with it, pure and simple, no theory that can be mustered and certainly not from the Framers, who were clear that every citizen of the United States, including those who lived in the Nation's Capital, would have the full democracy they fought for in the Revolutionary War. The Home Rule Act contains a height limit. Although many in the city would like to build high, the Home Rule Act recognizes that the monumental core has its own Federal meaning because that's where the monuments and the Capitol are, and they did not want those buildings which are central to our identity as a Nation overpowered by the tall buildings, even skyscrapers, we see in other big cities. But there, frankly, has not been a great deal of concern about that. Indeed, D.C. has its own height limit. The height limit helps the city when it comes to tourism. We, too, want everyone to see the monumental core, although you will find a healthy number of citizens here who would like to build as they build in other cities. We are not trying to overturn the Home Rule Act now; we are trying to get observance of the Home Rule Act. And when you pass a law that says, for example, no District funds may be used on something because it offends your personal predilection, you then are violating the most basic principle of any democracy, and that is why I have come to the floor and will be coming to the floor throughout the year. The District of Columbia may not enact any regulation or law having to do with any Federal court, any court of the United States. That's true of any jurisdiction. And there are a number of others. The District of Columbia cannot enact any law having to do with the National Zoo. That's a Federal zoo. I'm not sure why someone was concerned about that, but that's in the Home Rule Act. And you're not going to find the District Mayor or city council or residents going to the streets over the zoo. They went to the streets because they passed a law that Members of this House sought to overturn--and with respect to at least one of them have succeeded--and that brings shame on our democracy, because if you were to ask the citizens of the United States or of any place in the world whether or not any Member of this body should be able to overturn a law passed by the local government of the District of Columbia in a democratic fashion, you would find almost nobody in this country who would say yes, and you would find almost nobody in the world who would say anything but, You cannot be serious; you, who preach democracy all over the world. If these are your principles, the place and the time to apply them is right here, right now, at home. It is interesting to know that there was a lot of controversy until finally the Home Rule Act was passed, and it is no accident that the Home Rule Act was passed during the period of the sixties and the seventies when the great civil rights laws were passed. The country came to understand that you can hardly have civil rights laws and then have people in your own capital who have no mayor, no city council, no right to vote for local government, no vote in this body and still call yourself a democracy. All of that came together in the sixties and the seventies. I'd like to refer to two Presidents from that era, the so-called home rule era. You will find that every President of the era--in the postwar era--agreed with the notion that the District of Columbia should have unlimited right to self-government except for the express and specific exceptions in the Home Rule Act. It was Richard Nixon who signed the Home Rule Act. President Lyndon Johnson, in his message on home rule made these comments: Our Federal, State, and local governments rest on the principle of democratic representation--the people elect those who govern them. We cherish the creed declared by our forefathers: No taxation without representation. We know full well that men and women give the most of themselves when they are permitted to attack problems which directly affect them. Yet the citizens of the District of Columbia, at the very seat of the government created by our Constitution, have no vote in the government of their city. They are taxed without representation. They are asked to assume the responsibilities of citizenship while denied one of its basic rights. No major capital in the free world is in a comparable condition of disenfranchisement. He laid it straight out. How did this happen? Well, the Congress got a conscience from time to time and there were periods when the District had its full home rule. This is one of those periods. The Congress does not intervene into the life of this city--except when individual Members disagree with its actions. Let me read from Richard Nixon, who signed the Home Rule Act: The District's citizens should not be expected to pay taxes for a government which they have no part in choosing--or to bear the full burdens of citizenship without the full rights of citizenship. I share the chagrin that most Americans feel at the fact that Congress continues to deny self-government to the Nation's capital. I would remind the Congress that the Founding Fathers did nothing of the sort. Home rule was taken from the District only after more than 70 years of self- government, and this was done on grounds that were either factually shaky or morally doubtful. It is morally doubtful for any Member of this body to assume he or she has the right to tell the citizens of the District of Columbia how to govern themselves unless you are a member of the local body that governs the District of Columbia. If that is a principle which applies to your district, it must apply to mine. So we greatly resent that we are allowed to govern ourselves except when some Member decides that some matter would be controversial in his district, so, therefore, he wants to deny the District the right to carry out that matter after that matter has become a matter of local law. Every Framer would turn over in his grave to recognize that we could come to the 21st century with such provisions. Congress took action in the 110th and 111th Congresses to remove prohibitions on the District's use of local funds for medical marijuana, for needle exchange, and for abortions for low-income women. In the 112th Congress, Republicans re-imposed the ban on the use of local funds for abortion. Who do they think they are? They are accountable to no one in the District of Columbia. They are in straight, sure violation of every principle of the founding document. I believe that in good faith many Members, especially newer Members, are simply not aware of this history and not aware that it is grounded in the Framers' documents themselves. That's why, instead of assuming that any Member of this body would intentionally deny democracy to any American, I think the way to proceed is for this American, this Member, this representative of the people of the District of Columbia, to come forward on occasion with information and material that I hope Members will take under advisement. I thank the Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I want to thank the chairman of the full committee for his generosity. I want to thank my friends on both sides of the committee for their assistance with H.R. 3902, especially the chairman of the full committee, my good friend, Mr. Issa, and the chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Gowdy, for working closely with us on this bill. I also want to thank my good friends on our side, the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Cummings, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Davis, for their considerable support and assistance. Mr. Chairman, like you, I will be brief because you and I are the only ones here who have a vote in committee on this matter. The District of Columbia Special Election Reform Act is similar to the legislation I introduced last Congress, which, with the help of the chairman, was passed without objection by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and, with his help, quickly got to the full House for a vote. Final enactment of the bill was prevented not by this House, but by an anonymous hold in the Senate, which fortunately no longer allows such holds in that Chamber. This bill is of great importance to the District of Columbia, particularly now that the city council is faced with an example of a vacancy that this bill was designed to address--and had the bill been passed by the Senate, could have been addressed. However, instead of holding the special election that we are now required to hold on April 3, the day of the city's primary, the District must hold a special election on a different day, 1 month after the upcoming primary election, at a cost to the city of an additional $318,000. Although this bill, therefore, cannot take effect before the upcoming special election, the bill will provide the District with the flexibility in the future to conduct elections without the redundancy of coming to Congress and without unnecessary cost to the city. The District of Columbia Special Election Reform Act makes minor changes in the District's Home Rule Charter to provide the city greater flexibility to conduct special elections for vacancies in the office of Mayor, attorney general, council chair, and other members of the District of Columbia Council. Current law requires that a special election be held on a rigid date, the first Tuesday occurring more than 114 days after a vacancy, offering the District no flexibility. By the way, Mr. Chairman, there were complaints when the District of Columbia had a special election some time ago that the election had to be held on a religious holiday. The District had to say, We can't do anything about it, because it couldn't change the date itself. Instead, this bill would establish a range during which a special election may be conducted. That range would be between 70 and 174 days, giving the District the necessary flexibility to make a special election coincide with an already scheduled election, reducing the chance the city would have to schedule costly multiple elections or do so in too short a time period, and allowing the city to maximize voter turnout, for example, by not scheduling the election on a religious holiday, and to reduce the time period when residents are without representation. Mr. Speaker, this noncontroversial bill, which the committee passed by voice vote, provides the District with the necessary flexibility for holding timely and cost-effective special elections. It involves no cost whatsoever to the Federal Government. The District of Columbia Special Election Reform Act is of little, indeed, no concern, I dare say, to the Congress. But the D.C. Council cannot amend the Home Rule Charter which spells out procedures and structural matters for setting up the District, so the Mayor and the council had to come to me to introduce this local bill. Mr. Chairman, you indicated that such bills are not exactly congressional material. I hope that you and I can work together on a broader D.C. charter reform bill to give the District the authority to amend such local matters, such trivial local matters, as far as Congress is concerned, on its own, saving Congress from having to spend the time, its very valuable time at that, on uniquely local procedural matters affecting only the local government, the District of Columbia. I urge passage of the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time. General Leave

Ms. NORTON. I thank the chairman again for the haste with which he was able to get this bill heard today. I have no further speakers, and I am pleased to yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, this bill is a tragic exercise. It's a waste of time, and here's why. This is probably the only chance for a jobs bill this year, but it destroys almost 600,000 jobs. This bill is the only chance for every State to start on its backlog of projects for roads and bridges and transit, but it has cuts for every State except for five States. This bill is the only opportunity for Federal funding for mass transit across the country, but the bill defunds the Federal allocation for mass transit funding that began with Ronald Reagan. This bill is the only major piece of Federal legislation that has paid for itself with user fees, but this bill uses Federal employee pensions from hard-pressed middle-income workers to subsidize roads for almost 300 million Americans. This bill was the only chance this year for a bipartisan bill based on the long history of bipartisan Transportation and Infrastructure bills, but it is rife with poison pills that guarantee that it will be stillborn. Historically, the Transportation and Infrastructure bill has been our most popular bill. Even before coming to the floor today, this bill has received thumbs down across the Nation. That's what it should get here, too.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And I think, Mr. Speaker, in the next several days and weeks you're going to see people come forward to speak up for the silent majority in this controversy about contraception and what institutions should and should not provide. Whoever has been a silent majority, today it is the women of America, particularly women who may happen to work for Catholic hospitals, for a Catholic university as I did, for example, when as a Protestant I worked as a tenured professor of law at Georgetown University here in Washington, DC. The Catholic Church has long accepted the laws against discrimination except as to the Church itself and the Church's own activities. And so you'll find in a Catholic hospital or Catholic university you must hire people regardless of their race or religion and the like. Now, the Church seems to be seeking a different rule on how you accommodate religion. We have accommodated the Catholic Church when it comes to hiring its own employees, for example. And the administration has accommodated the Catholic Church when it comes to the provision of contraceptives for its own church employees. However, there are hundreds of thousands of women and men who work for hospitals, for universities, and other institutions that hold themselves out as nondiscriminatory and as accepting all people. For that reason the Church, of course, qualifies for Federal funds because it is accepted, as acting as a public institution in the place of a public institution. We have a long and treasured history, Mr. Speaker, of religious accommodation. When I chaired the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I recall the many cases in which we tried to err on the side of religious accommodation, but the accommodation must never be so broad as to trample on the rights of others. To accommodate the institution and not accommodate the people whose conscience is being trampled, of course, is precisely what the Constitution does not allow. A broad accommodation to the Church that would relieve it of offering a health care service that is essential would penalize the rights of thousands of non-Catholics. So whatever the right of the Church is, it does not have the right to trample on the rights of others. That's how accommodation works. The administration's own exemption is patterned on identical religious exemptions that have been tested in the courts and found to be constitutional. I think the administration was looking at two things when it fashioned a very, very generous exemption for the Church in the health care law. First, it was looking for what was necessary to do as vital to the health care of women, but it was also looking to what was constitutional. Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, I believe the broad exemption which the Catholic Church seeks which would penalize the rights of thousands of women who work for catholic-affiliated institutions who are not Catholic who do not share their views, whether or not they are Catholic, on this issue, if such an exemption were to be granted, then the administration, it seems to me, would find itself engaging in an unconstitutional exemption. The administration has accommodated the Church. It has fulfilled its obligation to see to it that women have a vital health care service, and it has prevented an unconstitutional violation. I am pleased to yield now to the gentleman from New York.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the party line from Republican leaders is that Republicans agree on a payroll tax cut holiday; they just need to find a way to pay for it. But Republican Members speak a different language. Georgia Republican Paul Broun told the press: ``The payroll tax holiday is just a gimmick to get Obama re-elected.'' That would be news to the average American family who will see its taxes increase by $1,000 on March 1 without a payroll tax agreement. The press reports a serious Republican split with only a 50/50 chance that Republicans can get their Members to agree on a payroll tax deal. Line that 50/50 Republican split up against their near-unanimous opposition to having wealthy and corporate taxpayers contribute one dime to deficit reduction. I'll leave it to the Republican leadership to reconcile these issues and their caucus. Meanwhile, the clock ticks louder each day. Republicans have 22 days to make up their minds on whether every worker who draws a paycheck deserves a tax cut.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H.R. 1734, the Civilian Property Realignment Act. Both Democrats and Republicans agree that we need a system to dispose of and consolidate excess Federal property. I have worked diligently with the chairman for such a bill for most of this year. However, the bill before us does not reflect the bipartisan compromise I agreed to. Moreover, I have just learned that the President also opposes the bill, and apparently, it does not even reflect a compromise among Republicans. I opposed this bill in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and it passed on a party-line vote. The bill before us today is essentially the same bill that I opposed at the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee markup. Shortly after that markup, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on which I also serve, approved a bipartisan alternative bill by voice vote, which I supported because it did not have the issues I have with the bill before us today. Why was the Transportation and Infrastructure bill rushed to the Rules Committee on Friday and quickly brought to the floor today? Why didn't we take the time to craft a bill that could pass the House with bipartisan support and that could stand a chance to pass in the Senate? Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, why isn't the bipartisan bill that I agreed to before us on the floor this evening? When I testified before the Rules Committee on Friday, I indicated that I would support the bill if the protections in existing law for the environment and the homeless were included in the bill. These protections are not included in the bill. The Rules Committee reported out a bill with no self-executing amendments. Instead, they made several amendments--including mine--in order for full consideration. I could have done that all along. There are no assurances whatsoever that my amendments would be adopted on this floor. The only way to ensure that my amendments were included in the bill would have been for the Rules Committee to have adopted a rule that made my amendments self-executing and, therefore, a part of the bill before us today. I will not stand here today to support a bill I've consistently opposed at Transportation and Infrastructure Committee markups on a hope and prayer that my amendments would have been adopted on the floor. I will not offer, as amendments, provisions I had every reason to expect would have been a part of the bill reported out of the Rules Committee. To offer my amendments separately is to greatly risk their defeat while the bill before us, which I oppose, still passes. I will not be used to give bipartisan cover to this bill or to paper over a divide among Republicans. The subcommittee that I serve on had two excellent hearings on the creation of the Civilian Property Realignment Commission. I support the original bipartisan idea of assembling a Civilian Property Realignment Commission, but there are several portions of H.R. 1734 before us on the floor right now that do not reflect a revised bipartisan bill. I have consistently attempted to make the needed changes to this bill, and they were unacceptable at the full committee markup and then at Rules, where my changes were not incorporated into the bill on this floor today. As subcommittee ranking member, I was not informed that if I wanted the changes in the bill, I would have to offer my amendments separately on the floor. Who would have agreed to that as a bipartisan compromise? I have been consistent in offering amendments to this bill to eliminate the waiver of the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, and the inclusion of a review of excess Federal property for homeless service providers and other public benefit conveyances by the Civilian Property Realignment Commission that would have been created by this bill. Curiously, the chairman now brings to the floor his own amendment concerning homeless providers which mirrors the homelessness section of the amendment assigned to me, but he does not include in his amendment the NEPA provision section of my amendment to which he and I agreed in order to reach a compromise. The bill, as it stands, severely limits the review of Federal property for a possible transfer to homeless providers and other public benefit conveyances by the Civilian Property Realignment Commission. By bypassing McKinney-Vento in the disposal process, the bill unnecessarily reduces the pool of Federal properties available for transfer to homeless service providers. In these difficult times, extinguishing the right of first refusal for homeless providers would be a severe blow to a sector that has already had to contend with a huge downturn in charitable giving during the recent recession. The experience, moreover, with homeless service providers is that they take only the smallest properties. And I had already agreed to shorten the time period for providers to claim properties. Secondly, the bill, as reported, would waive the application of the National Environmental Policy Act to some actions of the commission which I have always strongly opposed. Section 18(b) waives compliance with NEPA for the actions of the President, the commission, or any Federal agency when considering any of the commission's recommendations, except during the process of property disposal and during the process of relocating functions from a property being disposed of or realigned to another location. It is important to carefully conduct the environmental review on any decision to close, relocate, or reconfigure a Federal facility in time for the commission to consider the full implications of its actions. The current language precludes a full review of the actions until after the decision to sell or dispose of a piece of Federal property has already been made. This problem could have easily been fixed by including language that required agencies to submit information about the environmental conditions of a building and any information that the agency might have had about the potential impacts to the environment if a property was disposed of, consolidated, or redeveloped. Therefore, I must oppose the bill before us, and I urge opposition until a bipartisan base bill reflecting the issues I have discussed is presented on the floor. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I support the Carnahan amendment, and I just want to indicate what the agreement was with the chairman. In the base bill, we would have a bill that Democrats and Republicans would support. What we have here is a bill that somehow Republicans are divided on and that Democrats are expected to somehow carry over the finish line. If, in fact, this bill had come as a base bill, I think you would have had Democrats in larger numbers supporting this bill. Whatever Republicans wanted to do with the fact that the base bill did not always conform exactly to what they would have wanted would have been made up for on our side.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. I hope the gentleman is not implying that I do not keep my word, and let me be clear what my word was. I gave my word that I would support a bipartisan bill, not that I would support the opportunity to offer amendments on the floor. The gentleman knows quite well that the NEPA amendment is an amendment that his side generally does not support. Let me be plain. They generally don't support NEPA. The reason that the gentleman was willing to somehow come forward with what would appears to be a redundant amendment on homelessness--since mine already had homelessness in it--is because he wanted to separate himself from the NEPA amendment, and he knows full well that I would never support his bill without the NEPA provisions that I have spent months--months-- changing. This is a tragic collapse of what had been a bipartisan process until we went to the Rules Committee, when somebody made it clear, when somebody made it clear--and I don't know who it was--that this bill could be brought forward, the very bill I voted against, leaving it to this Member to take her chances that the other side of the aisle would support an amendment of the kind they have resolutely refused to support on the floor but that she believed that because a compromise had been worked out with the chairman, they might on this occasion support. I keep my word as well. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Ms. NORTON. I want the bill you and I agreed upon, Mr. Chairman, and that was the bill that had NEPA in it and that had homeless in it. And let me ask you, why did you come forward with an amendment that only has the homeless in it, that is the exact mirror image of the homeless section of my bill, but you did not include the NEPA section?

Ms. NORTON. Well, I don't agree that we're past the midnight hour, but I agree that we're past the point of no return. The gentleman wanted to talk about cost. This bill costs $68 million, a great deal more than another bill that I do support, the Oversight and Government Reform bill. I serve on that committee as well. I was willing, since this bill was coming to the floor first and since I had worked with the gentleman on this bill all along, to support this bill, but I don't think you can make the case that this bill is less costly than the Oversight and Government Reform bill. I would have thought that my colleagues on the other side would have gotten together to work that problem of two different bills out for themselves. My chief regret is to have spent a lot of time and effort and conversation that I believed was getting somewhere. Perhaps it was all a big misunderstanding. But if it were, if that's what it was, we certainly informed the other side about my concern before we came. That concern remains. I don't have any further speakers. I regretfully cannot support the bill before us. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. I will take such time as I may require. I wish that the chairman--he and I have had a very cordial and an amicable relationship. I only wish that he could guarantee that my amendments would, in fact, pass. I'm afraid that, watching his caucus in operation for a full year when they could not even agree whether or not the United States Government should go into default, I can't blame him for not being able to guarantee they will pass. But let me say why taking my chances that they would pass, even given his good faith hoping they would pass, is not enough. If he, in fact, wanted to make sure that the amendment passed, then he, of course, would be on the amendment. Instead, he does something curious indeed. He looks at my amendment, dissects it, takes the part of the amendment that he regards as less controversial--and on his side of the aisle--both parts will be controversial, but the least controversial part--and he says, I take this part, it's exactly like the homeless part of the so-called Norton amendment, but the other part that I testified to in Rules Committee he is not identified with that amendment on this floor. Now, I ask Members, what would you think if the chairman had gone with you to Rules saying he supported the amendment, and then when we got to the floor was willing to stand up--sorry--went to the trouble of pulling out one section of my amendment only to claim as his own? Why wouldn't he simply embrace my amendment? Worse, why wouldn't he have made sure that this was a bipartisan bill so that I would not be put in this position? And this is important to understand. If I bring up my amendment separately and it goes down, what will be before the House is essentially the bill I voted against in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Do I look like a fool? I voted against the bill that is on the floor today. In all good faith, the chairman cannot guarantee that the full bill with the changes that he and I agreed to will be the bill that, in fact, emerges here this evening. In fact, let me be even more blunt. What is more likely to emerge here this evening is the original bill that I, in fact, opposed on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The only way to make sure that my major objection, which was to NEPA, is included in the bill would have been for this bill to come forward with what I agreed to in the bill already. For me to have to come to the floor to beg that a part of this bill which was central to my agreement to support it now get a vote, especially from a side of this Chamber which has consistently voted against sections like the section that is at issue here, is to defy--is not to understand how to put together a compromise. If you have a compromise and you come to the floor, you don't take out part of what the compromise was about, leaving the other part so that she can fend herself on the floor knowing full well that the chances of getting that part of the amendment passed are, based on past experience, are not very great. So the reason I oppose it is because I believe that perhaps, and I don't know if other amendments on the Democratic side would be accepted or not, but I believe that as it now stands, the bill will look essentially like the bill that I spent all year opposing because my major reasons for opposing it have not been incorporated in the bill that will be the final bill voted on. And if I were to depend only on an amendment on this floor to get this provision, which has always been controversial on their side in the bill, then I don't think there's anybody on that side would guarantee that on their side my amendment with the NEPA provision would, in fact, pass. In that event, what I would be left with is the very bill that I have voted against for an entire year, and that is why I object to the way in which this bill has been handled. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the District of Columbia Special Election Reform Act. I introduced similar legislation last Congress, which passed without objection by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the full House. Final enactment of the bill was prevented, however, by an anonymous hold in the Senate, which is no longer allowed in that Chamber. This bill is of great importance to the District of Columbia, particularly now as the District of Columbia Council is faced with the sort of vacancy that this bill is meant to address. The District has to hold a special election just one month after the primary election, which will cost the city an estimated $318,000. Although this bill will not take effect before the upcoming special election, the bill will provide the District with the flexibility in the future to conduct fair elections without such redundancies and unnecessary costs. The District of Columbia Special Election Reform Act is of little concern to Congress, but the D.C. Council cannot amend the Home Rule Charter. All of the provisions in the bill have been passed or approved by the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia Special Election Reform Act makes minor changes to the District's Home Rule Charter to provide the city greater flexibility to conduct special elections for vacancies in the office of mayor, attorney general, Council chairman and other members of the District of Columbia Council. Current law requires that a special election be held on the first Tuesday occurring more than 114 days after a vacancy. The bill would establish a range during which a special election may be conducted, between 70 and 174 days, to reduce the gap in local representation, while also allowing the Board of Elections to take into account important factors when scheduling a special election, such as maximizing voter participation and avoiding conflicts with religious and culture observances. I very much appreciate the opportunity to work closely with the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa to develop this bill, and look forward to the bill being signed into law.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the historic Woodland Cemetery located in our nation's capital, one of the only remaining 19th centaury African American burial sites. Woodland Cemetery was established as the successor to Graceland Cemetery, which decided to relocate due to the imminent expansion of the District of Columbia. Woodland cemetery initially interred the more than 6,000 African Americans who were buried at Graceland, but as time went on, the location became more desirable for prominent figures in the D.C. African American community. The cemetery is the final resting place for such notable individuals as, Blanche K. Bruce, the first African American U.S. Senator; Mercer Langston, the first African American President of Virginia State University and the first dean of Howard University Law School and also the first African American Member of Congress from the state of Virginia; and John Willis Menard, the first African American elected to Congress. There are also many other distinguished people, who made our country what it is today, buried on this hallowed site Woodland Cemetery remained a highly desired location for African Americans to be interred until the 1970s. In the early 1990s Woodland earned the distinct honor of being placed on both the District of Columbia's Inventory of Historic Sites and the National Register of Historic Places. Today, the daily operations of the cemetery are entrusted to the Woodlawn Cemetery Perpetual Care Association, which is comprised of mostly volunteers who have loved ones buried there. The main focus of the association is to preserve the cemetery and to raise funds to renovate and restore prominence to this sacred site. I ask the House to join me as we recognize the historic value of this hallowed place not only in the month of February but year round.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the achievements of African American women throughout our nation's history. The Association for the Study of African American Life and History, ASALH, selected the achievements of African American women as its theme for 2012. ASALH has issued a statement, which I bring to the Floor. ``African American women have played a myriad of critical roles in the making of our nation. Their labor and leadership, their motherhood and patriotism, and their intellect and artistic expression have all enriched both the African American community and the Nation at large. In slavery and freedom, their struggles have been at the heart of the human experience, and their triumphs over racism and sexism are a testimonial to our common human spirit.'' ``Many know of the accomplishments of a few prominent historic figures: Phillis Wheatley, the unlikely American patriot during the Revolutionary War, Harriet Tubman, the leader of the Underground Railroad from slavery, Ida B. Wells, the unyielding opponent of lynching, Rosa Parks, the mother of the modem Civil Rights Movement. Black women have been notable for standing against oppression. From Gwendolyn Brooks to Toni Morrison to Rita Dove, they have distinguished themselves in American letters, and in recent years they have been recognized as actors and recording artists with Academy Awards and Grammys.'' ``The accomplishments of these exceptional women are the expressions of a vibrant culture in which African American women play a singular role. The labors, struggles, organization, and sacrifices of common women have made possible the prominence of heralded individuals. In churches, community groups, literary societies, sororities, and advocacy organizations, African American women have been the core of organized black life, but here their strivings have often escaped the gaze of the public, and hence their history is too little known.'' ``Their story is unique in the annals of American history. Black women were held as slaves and middle-class black women labored while their counterparts were housewives. Subjected to a long history of stereotypes about their sexuality, morality, spirituality, and intellect, African American women have never succumbed to victimhood and have pressed forward to uplift themselves, their families, and their community.'' ``To gain an understanding of the history of African American women is to broaden our understanding of a people and the American Nation. The Association for the Study of African American Life and History dedicates the 2012 Annual Black History Theme to exploring African American women's roles in and contributions to the making of America.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the work of African American women throughout our nation's history.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, could I make an inquiry at this time?