Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Lt. Dominique Wright for excellence in education and athletics. On May 29, 2012, Lt. Dominique Wright graduated from the United States Naval Academy, becoming the first African American woman from the District of Columbia to graduate from there, and was commissioned at Annapolis, Maryland.

Lt. Wright, the daughter of a single parent, has overcome many obstacles in her young life. Yet she became the quintessential scholar- athlete. ``Dom'' or ``Domatron,'' as she is called by friends was a mathematics major who plans on attending law school. She was a star on the Midshipmen's lacrosse team, starting all 21 games during her junior year, just one year after learning the sport. Lt. Wright was lettered in track and field in high school and was a Junior Olympian.

Lt. Wright is only the second African American woman from the District of Columbia to attend the Naval Academy, but is the first one to graduate. I nominated Lt. Wright twice: first in 2008 to the Naval Academy Prep School, then in 2009 to the Naval Academy. Dominique's excellence in scholastics and in sports should encourage other young people, particularly young women of color, to understand that no field is off limits.

Lt. Wright is an inspiration to young girls, to women, and to all the residents of the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring Lt. Dominique Wright, the first African American woman graduate of the United States Naval Academy from Washington, D.C. and a trailblazing example of excellence.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring First Book on the occasion of their twentieth anniversary and in celebrating their work on behalf of children in need, here in the District of Columbia and across the country.

First Book is a nonprofit organization that provides brand-new books and educational resources to schools and community programs that work with children from low-income families. Since 1992 it has distributed over 90 million new books to children in need.

First Book was founded in Washington, DC, twenty years ago this week, by Peter Gold, Elizabeth Arky, and Kyle Zimmer, who recognized the critical need for books among the children of the city's poorest neighborhoods, and how this limits children's futures. The children of the District of Columbia were the first beneficiaries of First Book's work, and D.C. children have been a special focus of the organization over the years, even as it expanded to every state in the union and Canada. In the past two years alone, First Book has provided more than 300,000 brand-new books to children across this city.

Ms. Zimmer continues to lead the organization today, and her vision and passion have enabled First Book to grow into a world-class social enterprise with an unsurpassed record of success.

First Book's commitment to the children, teachers, and local community leaders they serve is realized through the organization's ground-breaking business models. Reflecting the best of social sector and private sector partnerships, First Book works with the publishing industry to create new and innovative ways to get books and other educational resources to children who would otherwise go without them. By providing access to a steady stream of new and quality books, First Book is elevating the quality of education, giving teachers the resources they need to help their students become more successful in school and in life.

I ask the House to join me in honoring Kyle Zimmer and her colleagues at First Book, and further ask the members to introduce First Book to teachers in their home districts. The more schools and community programs join First Book's network, the closer we will come to achieving equity in education for all children.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the 6th annual DC Latino Pride, the national capital region's celebration of our Latino lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.

The Washington, D.C. metropolitan area has had an identifiable Latino LGBT community since the early 1960s. However, the community remained largely invisible until the first LGBT March on Washington in 1987. DC Latino Pride's parent organization, the Latino Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender History Project, began in 2000. The organization

grew out of a private archive kept since 1993 by its founder, Jose Gutierrez, who, in turn, organized the first DC Latino Pride in 2007.

It has been both a pleasure and an inspiration to watch DC Latino Pride grow from a panel discussion held the day before the annual Capital Pride parade to this year's series of events between May 20 and June 7: La Corona, La Platica, La Misa, and La Fiesta. The four events incorporate the elements of DC Latino Pride's 2012 theme: ``History, Celebration, Identity, and Diversity.''

The volunteers who staff the Latino LGBT History Project and who are organizing DC Latino Pride also embody the 2012 theme. This year's organizers include: David M. Perez, the president of the Latino LGBT History Project and the Director of Development for the League of United Latin American Citizens; Jose Gutierrez, a member of Mayor Vincent Gray's LGBT Advisory Council and a member of La Clinica del Pueblo community health center; Mannuel Cosme, treasurer of the Latino LGBT History Project and CFO of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Jorge Andres Sotos, secretary of the Latino LGBT History Project and a civil rights attorney in private practice; Esther Hidalgo, a manager at Leslie Cashen Photography and a Library and Archives Assistant at the Franciscan Monastery of the Holy Land. The 2012 Latino Pride co-chairs are Sergio Lopez and Oskar Moran, who work for, respectively, the People for the American Way and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate-Aviation Safety Program Office. The 2012 Development Chair, Raul Olivo, is the immediate past co-chair and parade manager, and is a health educator and advocate for Transgender Health Empowerment.

I ask the House to join me in recognizing the 6th annual DC Latino Pride, welcoming all those who will attend, and congratulating the volunteers for work well done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to recognize the 22nd annual D.C. Black Pride celebration in Washington DC, which is taking place on Memorial Day weekend, May 24 28.

D.C. Black Pride 2012 is a multi-day festival featuring: an opening reception; community and town hall meetings; a reception at Madame Tussauds; educational workshops; a poetry slam; a film festival; a church service; performances by musicians, dancers, and other artists. D.C. Black Pride culminates with a Health and Wellness Expo at the Francis-Stevens Educational Campus.

D.C. Black Pride is widely considered to be one of the world's preeminent Black Pride celebrations, drawing more than 30,000 people to the Nation's Capital from across the United States as well as from Canada, the Caribbean, South Africa, Great Britain, France, Germany, and the Netherlands.

As the very first-ever Black Pride festival, D.C. Black Pride fostered the beginning of the International Federation of Black Prides, Inc. and the ``Black Pride Movement,'' which now consists of 35 Black Prides on three continents. Black Lesbian and Gay Pride Day, Inc., the celebration's organizing body, chose ``It's A Family Affair'' as this year's theme. The theme reflects the connectedness of the Black lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community and its commitment to fulfilling the mission of D.C. Black Pride, which is to increase awareness of and pride in the diversity of African American LGBT communities. Moreover, the theme expresses the resolve of the African-American LGBT community and its allies to come together to: fight for LGBT equality; celebrate their heritage and culture as members of both the Black and LGBT communities; and promote health and wellness for the community.

D.C. Black Pride is led by a volunteer board of directors, which coordinates the annual event and smaller events throughout the year. The 2012 board consists of: George Birdsong; Max Cheatham, Derrick Dunning, Jimma Elliott-Stevens, Earl Fowlkes, Jr., Kenneth Hopson; Kenya Hutton, Danielle King, Marc Morgan, June Spence; and Andrea Woody-Macko.

I ask the House of Representatives to join me in welcoming all attending the 22nd annual D.C. Black Pride celebration in Washington, DC, and I take this opportunity to remind the celebrants that the United States citizens who reside in Washington, DC are taxed without voting representation in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this afternoon as part of my series of talks designed to help Members of the House and Senate understand the place of the District of Columbia in our structure. It is an anomalous place. And when Members come to the House of Representatives, they must find it very peculiar that anything having to do with a local jurisdiction comes here at all.

The most important thing to remember as I speak this afternoon is that that anomaly got to be too much for the Congress, and 39 years ago the Congress sent back to the District the power to legislate for the District of Columbia. So if you hear Members say Congress can legislate for the District of Columbia, you must point them to the Home Rule Act of 1973.

It is true that on some matters the District cannot legislate for itself. Those matters involve things like imposing a commuter tax or changing the limits on how high buildings can be in the District, because we don't want to obscure the great monuments. But I assure you that the enumerated congressional powers over the District are quite small, and that none of what I have to say this afternoon is among those areas where Congress has said, only Congress itself should be able to legislate.

Yet my good friends on the other side insist upon imposing their own views on the District of Columbia quite undemocratically against our will. Even if you assumed that Congress could enact laws for the District of Columbia, no one would assume that Congress could--without any democratic accountability--enact laws that went counter to the laws the District had enacted.

Where are the small-government Tea Party members, the ones who are trying to teach the House of Representatives a lesson about pulling back even from Federal matters? You cross the line very seriously when you involve yourself in local matters where you yourself cannot be held accountable. Do you believe in democracy or not? It seems to me that the entire notion of passing a law and imposing it on people who have no say about it is a kind of authoritarianism that we ourselves criticize on this floor every single day in one fashion or another.

Twice this week, Republican Members disregarded their own basic principles and sought to interfere with the local government of the District of Columbia and its citizens against their will in the most undemocratic fashion. There was no respect for democracy, no respect for federalism, no respect for their own principles. They moved forward to say that this was the way we would like it, no matter what you would like.

As you might expect, we took exception. I am very pleased with the outpouring of support we have received from all over the country regarding the way the District was treated in the attempt by Representative Trent Franks to impose his views on reproductive choice for the women and physicians of the District of Columbia. And I appreciate the support I have received when many were shocked that I was not granted the courtesy of testifying at his hearing on his bill, which affects only my district.

Let me say a word about that bill. Representative Trent Franks is from Arizona. The sponsor of this same bill in the Senate--a bill to impose a 20-week limit on abortions for women in the District of Columbia--is from at least as far away, Senator Mike Lee of Utah.

Senator Lee had hardly hit the ground--I think had filed all of nine bills when he filed a bill that would impose a 20-week limit on abortions in the District of Columbia. Not on Utah, but on the District of Columbia. Representative Franks' bill wouldn't impose this on Arizona. It's only on the District of Columbia.

There is nobody in this House that would not have taken umbrage at such undemocratic audacity, and so we did.

As for Senator Mike Lee, he realized what he was doing wasn't exactly kosher because he introduced the bill, and though he is a new Member-- and every new Member puts out a press release about what he's done--he didn't put out a release on this bill. So we outed him. We put out a release on his bill. And then his newspapers began to talk, and so then he put out a release.

I think what I am talking about will be understood when you see how this occurred. One thing that most Americans have learned to do is respect the differences on very controversial issues. And one of the most controversial is abortion, an issue that really turns off Independents in this country but captures the verve of the right wing to this day, even though the right of women to reproductive choice was declared decades ago in Roe v. Wade. And, of course, when they come at women, Democrats respond.

Under Roe v. Wade, a woman is entitled to seek an abortion at 20 weeks of pregnancy. In fact, the Supreme Court was at pains to say that it would not put a time limit on the number of weeks, that that's a matter of viability and a matter between the woman and her physician. Yet Senator Mike Lee and Representative Trent Franks sought to set the number of weeks on their own--in violation, of course, of the constitutional mandate in Roe v. Wade.

What are we supposed to do, sit down and take it?

I asked to testify at the hearing on Rep. Trent Franks' bill. Representative Trent Franks, as chairman of the subcommittee, denied me the right to testify, even though the bill related only to my district. He said that it was because the rules say that Democrats could have only one witness, and that they had chosen a woman, whom we had recommended, Professor Christy Zink, who had an abortion in the District of Columbia at 21 weeks on the recommendation of her physicians and her family when the fetus was discovered to be hopelessly deformed.

Of course we would want the committee to hear from such a person. And the rules may well be what Representative Franks says they are. But he clearly has no sense of common courtesy or comity, of congressional courtesy, where, as a matter of right, any such rule would be waived, particularly if the Member's own district were implicated.

It's bad enough to introduce a bill that has to do with somebody else's district, where nobody--not the physicians who are implicated, not the women and families who are implicated--can reach you because they can't vote for you. Hardly an act of courage.

If this is so important--and I have to believe it is to them--why wouldn't Senator Lee and Representative Franks introduce a 20-week bill for all the Nation? Why does their courage stop at the District line? This should be a matter of principle. How could you possibly want to stop abortions after 20 weeks only in one district?

Of course Representative Franks is in the habit of denying me the opportunity to testify when his subcommittee considers bills that affect only my district. He considered a bill that passed here in the House but was stopped in the Senate that would have permanently kept the District of Columbia, alone from spending its own local taxpayer funds on abortions for low-income women. What in the world does a Member from Arizona have to do with how we, in the District of Columbia, spend money that he had nothing to do with raising?

Having been denied the right to testify on that bill, no wonder I was denied again yesterday. Except this time, it went viral. And all over the United States, they are talking about how a Member introduces a bill relating to another Member's district, and she doesn't even get a waiver so that she can say something on behalf of her own constituents on the bill he has introduced, which will only affect those constituents and not his own.

And I'm supposed to like it? Well, I don't like it. And I'm not going to sit still for it.

I went to the hearing yesterday, and everyone was polite. Representative Franks invited me to sit on the all-male Member panel, but without being able to speak, to hear about how women in the District of Columbia should have their right to reproductive choice cut off by him. I didn't give him the opportunity for that optic, to have me on the panel, unable to say anything. Invite the Member from the District to sit on the panel, to integrate it so that there is at least one woman, and tell her to keep her mouth shut while they talk about her district, hear from one of her constituents, and talk about denying the women and families in her district what women and families are entitled to everywhere in the United States. No, sir, thank you.

What I want is the same rights everybody else has. I grew up as a second-class citizen in this town twice over--second class because we didn't have a Member of Congress until the 1970s, and second class because I was an African American and, therefore, as a child had to go to segregated schools.

And I'm not going to have my constituents, now that I am a Member of Congress, treated any differently from the way Representative Trent Franks' constituents are treated or Senator Mike Lee's constituents are treated.

We are free and equal Americans. We pay Federal income taxes just like everybody else. And yet we have no vote on the House floor. The nerve of Members introducing a bill that they expect to go to the House floor, and I would not even be able to vote on the bill. And yet it would apply only to my constituents.

Where is the sense of decency? There is none. I don't know about a war on women, but when you keep coming at the District of Columbia women, that's a war on them. And if you want to declare war, I'm here to do the best I can to fight back.

First, it was our low-income women, by barring D.C. from spending its local funds on abortions. They have succeeded in getting that rider re- embedded in our local budget. Now they want to do that on a permanent basis. And now they want to go to a 20-week limit, and no woman--low- income, high-income--no woman in the District of Columbia could get an abortion. And our physicians who care for women from all over this region and all over the country, who found what Professor Zink's physician found, which is that she should not carry that fetus to full term, would have to somehow ask her to find someone outside of the District of Columbia to perform an abortion under such tragic circumstances,--a woman who had a child and wanted another child. Who would put somebody through that?

It is an insatiable hunger that the small-government Tea Party Republicans are showing for interfering with the democratic rights of the people I represent. And I'm going to call them out. You're not going to get away with doing it in private. You're not going to get away with not having me testify. We're going to shout it to the hilltops that all you talk about--small government and that the Federal Government should get out of everybody's lives--and now you're hopping over those principles into the lives of 600,000 Americans who you are not accountable to, after the Congress said in 1973 that governing for the District of Columbia now 1973 belongs to the Mayor and the council of the District of Columbia only. No. We're not going to stand for it. You're going to hear from us.

The bill is patently unconstitutional. These very courageous Republicans gotten it passed in seven conservative States. They want a Federal imprimatur on this bill. So they say, Let's get the District of Columbia. What kind of courage do they lack? Do you believe in it? Introduce it. Introduce it for the women of America. What are you afraid of? Where's your spine? Do you only have a spine when it comes to 600,000 people who have a representative who you continue to disempower by denying her a vote on the House floor, including a vote on her own appropriation and a vote on the very bill that you've introduced to take away rights guaranteed under the Constitution that her citizens are entitled to?

The bill is patently unconstitutional. Roe v. Wade indicates that women are entitled to abortion care until viability. But do you know what else the bill is? It's a violation of our 14th Amendment right, because you are treating our women and our physicians differently than women and physicians are treated elsewhere in the United States.

Don't come at us with unequal protection and expect the people I represent to say, Okay, Mr. Congressman, just do whatever you like.

Keep doing it and we will keep calling you out. We will never let you get away with a cost-free undemocratic intrusion into our lives.

Last night, here comes Representative Phil Gingrey with a resolution, nonbinding, saying that active duty military personnel in the District of Columbia on personal time should not have to abide by the gun laws of the District of Columbia. Here we go again with our gun laws. We have stricer gun laws than some. So be it. Some States have strict gun laws, too. Are we less American than others that enact their own laws? At whose altar am I supposed to kneel? Who are my constituents supposed to bow down to? Nobody in this House or Senate.

Well, I opposed that resolution because if Representative Gingrey of Georgia thinks that active duty military personnel in their private capacities should not have to obey the gun laws in D.C, then he ought to wank it for every State in the Union.

You're not going to put on us bills for the District of Columbia that clearly have nationwide import in order to make your ideological points in a cheap and cynical way. Because that's what it is. It's on the cheap. It's a defiance of democracy, and it expects us to

just let it go. On the contrary, it gets our dander up to be treated as less than full American citizens. It gets our dander up.

Sure, the resolution passed. It was nonbinding. But the fact is that, if you want to do a nonbinding resolution that says that gun laws shouldn't be applicable to active duty personnel in their personal capacities, there is no possible reason to limit that to one jurisdiction.

We will not have it. We are not vehicles, pawns, or instruments to be used at will. We are full-fledged American citizens who fought and died in every American war, including the war that created the United States of America. We are the only taxpaying citizens of the United States of America who have no voting representation in this House and none at all in the Senate.

Get off of your high, undemocratic horses. It's bad enough that you allowed that kind of a situation to go on for 200 years, but when you pile on and want to enact legislation that you don't have the nerve or the guts to enact for the entire country, but do such bills only for the District of Columbia, expect the District of Columbia to come back at you.

We may be only one jurisdiction, but we will never allow ourselves and our citizenship to be degraded, and we will not allow ourselves to be demeaned as the Franks-Lee bill did and as the Gingrey bill did. Go home and make your own constituents understand why you are legislating for somebody else's district and you tell me whether your Tea Party friends will say, Well done. I doubt it.

Mr. Speaker, this was a week when twice in the same week Republicans tried to roll over the District of Columbia. Once was too much; twice, I simply could not abide. So I issue fair warning. It's only me here. I can't hurt anybody. I can't even vote against you. But I can tell you this much: I'm not going to allow the unequal treatment of the taxpaying citizens I represent to go unaddressed ever, not for one single moment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the 6th Annual D.C. Latino Pride, the national capital region's celebration of our gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) Latino communities.

The Washington, D.C. metropolitan area has had an identifiable GLBT Latino community since the early 1960s. However, the community remained largely invisible until 1987, after the first LGBT March on Washington, D.C. D.C. Latino Pride's parent organization, The Latino Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender History Project, began in 2000. The organization grew out of a private archive kept since 1993 by its founder, Jose Gutierrez, who in turn organized the first D.C. Latino Pride in 2007.

It has been both a pleasure and an inspiration to watch D.C. Latino Pride grow from a panel discussion on the day before the annual Capital Pride parade, to this year's series of events between May 20 and June 7: La Corona, La Platica, La Misa, and La Fiesta. The four events incorporate the elements of D.C. Latino Pride's 2012 theme: ``History, Celebration, Identity, and Diversity.''

The volunteers who staff the Latino GLBT History Project and organize D.C. Latino Pride also embody the 2012 theme. Its President, David M. Perez, is also the Director of Development of the League of United Latin American Citizens; Jose Gutierrez works at La Clinica del Pueblo and on the Mayor's GLBT Advisory Council; its Treasurer, Mannuel Cosme, is the C.F.O of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Secretary; Jorge Andres Sotos, is a civil rights attorney in private practice; Board Member Esther Hidalgo is a manager at Leslie Cashen Photography and a Library and Archives Assistant at the Franciscan Monastery of the Holy Land; 2012 Latino Pride Co-Chairs Sergio Lopez and Oskar Moran work, for People for the American Way and NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate-Aviation Safety Program Office, respectively; Development Chair, Raul Olivo, is a manager; and the immediate past Latino Pride Co-Chair, is a health educator and advocate for Transgender Health Empowerment.

I ask the House to join me in recognizing the 6th Annual D.C. Latino Pride, welcoming all those who will attend, and congratulating the volunteers for work well done.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to amendment No. 39. The amendment reflects a pattern by Republicans in the 112th Congress of singling out the District of Columbia for unique treatment and outright bullying.

There is no Federal law that exempts active military personnel in their personal capacities from otherwise applicable Federal firearms laws, except with respect to residency requirements, or from any State or local firearms laws. Yet the amendment expresses the sense of Congress that active duty personnel in their personal capacities should be exempt from gun laws only in one jurisdiction, the District of Columbia.

If the gentleman on the other side who sponsored this amendment believes that active duty personnel should be exempt from Federal, State, or local firearms laws, why did he not offer an amendment that would apply nationwide? Perhaps he did not offer such an amendment for the same reason that the Republican sponsor of H.R. 3808--to ban abortions for 20 weeks only in the District of Columbia, on which the House Judiciary Committee on the Constitution held a hearing today--did not introduce that same 20-week bill to apply nationwide. Or perhaps Republicans pick on the District because they think they can.

The proponents of this amendment, as well as the D.C. gun bill which would eliminate D.C.'s gun laws, live in the past, acting as if the changes the District has made in its gun laws after the Supreme Court Heller decision in 2008 had not happened, and as if a Federal district court and a Federal appeals court had not already upheld the constitutionality of the District's new gun laws. They act as if the Supreme Court's McDonald decisions in 2010 had never occurred.

In McDonald, the Court said that the Second Amendment does not confer ``the right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.''

This amendment represents the third attack by this Congress on the District's gun safety laws. Although the amendment is nonbinding, we will fight every attack on our rights as a local government, particularly when we are singled out for unequal treatment.

This amendment does nothing less than attempt to pave the way for actual inroads into the District's new gun safety laws. Republicans have been trying, this week, to use the District of Columbia to move issues they dare not propose for the Nation at large, instead of focusing on jobs. And our allies, our city, and I have spent the week fighting back equally hard.

The majority can expect a fierce fight from us whenever a bill degrades our citizens and treats them in any way as second-class citizens, as this bill proposes to do this very evening.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, if this is such a benign amendment for the good of the District of Columbia, I can't imagine why the gentleman hasn't offered it for the Nation at large. Why help us when we haven't asked for your help? Why not help everybody?

Why not help people in Virginia? More of the Members of our Armed Services pass through Virginia than pass through the District of Columbia.

You don't want to help us. Nobody on that side has helped us this year. If you want to help us, come ask me first, and I'll tell you what kind of help we need.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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