Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today, in recognition of April being Second Chance Month, I introduce the Fairness in Federal Bureau of Prisons Medical Care Act of 2019. This bill would remove the current copay Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) inmates are required to pay to visit a BOP-provided doctor.

Under current BOP rules, inmates are required to ``pay a fee for health services of $2.00 per health care visit.'' While $2.00 may seem insignificant, when inmates earn only twelve to forty cents per hour on their work assignments, $2.00 is substantial. That money could better be used to pay for the cost of necessities. Moreover, while copays can discourage unnecessary appointments, we should be encouraging inmates to seek medical care before conditions become worse and more expensive for taxpayers. Preventative care is much less expensive for the federal government than costly treatment that could have been avoided by a simple doctor's visit earlier in the process. That is what medical science advises for Americans as a health practice.

Under current BOP rules, if an inmate is found responsible through the Disciplinary Hearing Process of having caused another inmate's injury that required a medical visit, the offending inmate is required to pay the $2.00 copay for the injured inmate's visit. That rule would not change under my bill.

Removing this unnecessary copay would allow inmates to see a doctor and receive the medical treatment they need, and would likely save the federal government money in the long run.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Nelson Carbonell, who has dedicated many years to The George Washington University (GWU), especially as the Chair of its Board of Trustees for the past six years.

Carbonell's service to GWU has been a labor of love. Carbonell first walked through the university's Professor's Gate as a teenager in the fall of 1981 during his freshman year as a scholarship student. He was eager to learn and fulfill his ambitions to become an engineer. From those first years as an undergraduate to his later years as a highly successful alumnus, Carbonell's devotion to GWU has only grown. There is no part of the university's academic, civic, athletic and cultural life that Carbonell has not touched in some way, shape or form.

Among his many contributions to GWU, Carbonell and his wife, Michele, have established an academic center within the university's athletics department to provide educational support services to student athletes. Together, they established the Nelson and Michele Carbonell Engineering Scholarship and created an endowed professorship at GWU's new Autism and Neurodevelopmental Disorders Initiative. Over the years, Nelson Carbonell has been important to individual students and has made key contributions that help to ensure the university remains ever-committed to its missions of educating future citizen leaders and generating ideas that have a real-world impact.

Carbonell was instrumental in helping GWU select its last two presidents, whose ideas and influence on a university's culture can be as enduring as any building. He was also crucial to the construction of the largest academic

building dedicated to science and engineering in Washington, D.C., as well as of the new, state-of-the-art Milken School for Public Health. Carbonell spearheaded the largest philanthropic campaign in GWU's history, which will empower the university to produce consequential graduates and ideas for generations.

Carbonell's pervasive positive influence on both GWU and the greater D.C. community stems not only from his abiding affection for the university, but also from his intellectual curiosity, generosity of spirit, entrepreneurial drive and his considerable leadership skills. As a leader, Carbonell demonstrated his keen ability to bring various members of the community together so each person's individual talents and role were utilized in service of the greater good.

I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Nelson Carbonell for his leadership and selfless service during his time at The George Washington University.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the Marijuana in Federally Assisted Housing Parity Act. My bill would permit the use of marijuana in federally assisted housing, including public housing and Section 8 housing, in compliance with the marijuana laws of the state where the property is located.

Individuals living in federally assisted housing should not be denied admission, or fear eviction, for using a legal product. Adult use and/ or medical marijuana is currently legal in 33 states and the District of Columbia, and over 90 percent of Americans support legalized medical marijuana. Under current federal law, the users of drugs that are illegal under federal law, including marijuana, are prohibited from being admitted into federally assisted housing. Moreover, federal law allows landlords to evict residents of federally assisted housing for drug use. Even the Food and Drug Administration has recently supported approving certain medication made from cannabis, including Eipdiolex, which would be administered as a syrup. Eipdiolex is used to treat children who suffer from seizures. Notably, the drug does not contain tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the psychoactive component in cannabis.

For the last several years, Congress has prohibited the Department of Justice (DOJ) from using federal funds to prevent jurisdictions from implementing their medical marijuana laws. This bill would similarly allow individuals to use marijuana in federally assisted housing in compliance with the state's marijuana laws.

Under my bill, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) must also develop regulations that restrict smoking marijuana in federally assisted housing in the same manner and to the same locations as the Secretary restricts smoking tobacco in federally assisted public housing.

HUD, like DOJ, should not be allowed to enforce federal marijuana laws where states have taken action to legalize marijuana. The Marijuana in Federally Assisted Housing Parity Act states that a person may not be denied federally assisted housing based on the use of marijuana in compliance with the marijuana laws of the state where the property is located.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring members of ``El Corols Band and Show'' (El Corols) on their 60th reunion celebration, which will take place on Sunday, April 28, 2019, at the Westminster Presbyterian Church in Southwest, Washington, D.C.

In 1959, a group of students in the music department at Shaw Junior High School formed El Corols, the first rhythm and blues band in the District of Columbia. El Corols was highly sought-after for school and private parties all over the city and beyond. The band performed for many charitable and community organizations throughout the city. During the summer, the group spent the majority of its time performing at Carr's Beach, a public beach for African Americans in Annapolis, Maryland. (African Americans were not welcome at any of the ``white'' beaches. Although our nation was segregated, many found comfort and joy through the vibrant musical talents of El Corols.)

The band consisted of teenagers, yet the members were honored and privileged to be the ``house band'' at the beach. The band was presented with opportunities to perform and accompanied many of the famous stars of that era, including Dionne Warwick, Patti LaBelle and the Bluebells, Bobby ``Blue'' Bland, Billy Stewart, Gene Chandler, and James Brown, to name a few. As teenagers, the band members had no idea that they were making history. They were simply excited about playing music and entertaining.

The apex of El Corols' experience was their performance with Nat King Cole in 1963 at Eastern High School, where United States Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy was an honored guest. Another highlight of El Corols' experience was the invitation to perform at the Debutante Cotillion of New York Socialite Fernanda Wetherhill Wannamaker in South Hampton, Long Island.

As the members of El Corols reflect on their teenage years, they continue to cherish the lifelong memories and experiences they were afforded simply due to their dedication to and love of music.

El Corols is indebted to its manager, Captain William Rumsey, who was Dunbar High School's Military Science Teacher. Captain Rumsey later became the Principal of McKinley Technical High School, and upon his retirement from the public school system, he became Director of the District of Columbia Parks and Recreation Department. Captain Rumsey was a strict disciplinarian and assured the band members' parents that they were in capable hands and would be well cared for under his management. Captain Rumsey never failed in his commitment to the band and stands in a proud space in history alongside the members of El Corols.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor today to recognize the rich history of El Corols on the occasion of its 60th reunion. I ask my colleagues to join me in this recognition.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Local Juror Non-Discrimination Act of 2019. This bill would clarify that D.C. residents may not be excluded or disqualified from jury service in the D.C. Superior Court based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Specifically, my bill would clarify that ``sex,'' which is a protected class under the non-discrimination law that currently applies to local D.C. jurors, includes sexual orientation and gender identity. Under the Home Rule Act, Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over Title 11 of the D.C. Code (relating to organization and jurisdiction of the local D.C. courts).

The District has one of the strongest non-discrimination laws in the country, including protecting individuals based on sexual orientation and gender identity. However, under the Home Rule Act, the District does not have the authority to make this non-discrimination law applicable to local jurors. Therefore, until the District is given complete control over the jurisdiction and organization of its local courts, an act of Congress is required to make this important change to protect the rights of all D.C. residents. I will soon be introducing a bill to give the District local control of its courts. In the meantime, however, the District of Columbia Local Juror Non-Discrimination Act of 2019 is necessary to protect D.C. jurors from discrimination.

My bill is based on H.R. 874, the Juror Non-Discrimination Act of 2019 (H.R. 874), which would make the same changes to federal jury law. I am a proud original cosponsor of that bill.

I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, D.C. makes a big deal of Emancipation Day. That is the day that Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves in the Nation's Capital 9 months before the Emancipation Proclamation freed the rest.

You will forgive us if we say that it is hardly enough that more than 150 years later, the residents of your Nation's Capital, White and Black, are number one in Federal taxes paid to support this Republic but have no final vote, like the vote just cast in this House on the House floor, and no Senators whatsoever.

Emancipation Day will mark the day when we will celebrate H.R. 51 to make the District of Columbia the 51st State.

Lincoln freed the slaves in the District of Columbia. Congress must pass H.R. 51 to make freedom mean equality for the residents of your Nation's Capital with all other Americans.

Madam Speaker, I have the honor of representing the oldest continuously functioning Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning (LGBTQ) organization in the United States. Today, I rise to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the 48th anniversary of the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington,

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the District of Columbia Flood Prevention Act of 2019. The bill would amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) to include the nation's capital in the definition of ``coastal state.'' Our bill would correct an apparent oversight in the omission of the District of Columbia and would make the District eligible to receive federal funding and provide oversight for federally issued permits, facilities and actions that affect the coastal waters of the District. The District urgently needs the protection of the CZMA because of serious flood risks that currently affect federal assets, residents and businesses, including the National Mall and the cluster of downtown federal agencies.

In an effort to reduce coastal flood risk, Congress has authorized a number of programs to help states and territories respond to floods and mitigate risk through resiliency projects. Among these programs, the CZMA provides planning and technical services to assist states in protecting, restoring and developing coastal communities and resources. Once the federal government approves a state's coastal management plan, the state becomes eligible for grants. Federal actions must be consistent with the state plans and vice versa.

Even though the District is located on two rivers and has suffered substantial coastal floods in the past, D.C. was omitted from the list of eligible states and territories in the CZMA. This oversight probably occurred because the CZMA was passed in 1972--before the District achieved home rule. Of note, under Section 304 of the CZMA, ``coastal state[s]'' include the states and U.S. territories (Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands and American Samoa). Absent from this definition is the District, even though the District, including the federal complex, is under a serious threat from rising sea levels. Because territories are included in the definition of ``coastal states,'' it appears that D.C.'s omission is a mistake, which only Congress can correct.

Scientists have predicted that the tides on the Atlantic Coast could rise two to four feet by the year 2100, causing property worth as much as $7 billion in the District to be routinely under threat by floodwaters. This damage not only includes private homes and businesses, but the National Mall, federal buildings and three military bases located in the District. The Anacostia and Potomac Rivers are both tidally influenced, showing tangible salt water effects (and fish), and are part of an ``intertidal-zone'' existing between high and low maritime tides. In addition, the Maryland and Virginia coastal zones each include the tidal Potomac River, with Maryland's zone ending at the District line. Because of these factors, the District should be eligible under the CZMA just like the states and territories already listed in the CZMA.

I urge support for this bill.

Madam Speaker, a week from Tuesday will be what we call Emancipation Day in the District of Columbia. We use that occasion to point out the continued inequality of the residents who live in our Nation's Capital.

Emancipation Day was the day when Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves in the District of Columbia. Yes, there were slaves working in the District of Columbia. It was considered a Southern State. He freed them 9 months before the Emancipation Proclamation freed all slaves.

Yet the residents of the Nation's Capital remain less free than any other Americans. Even without statehood, however, the people of the Nation's Capital have, indeed, made progress.

Madam Speaker, I want to discuss the problems and the progress, especially as we come close to the point when we will bring our D.C. statehood bill to the floor and the House will vote whether to make the District the 51st State.

We recognize we were the last to be free because we are not free yet. We won't be free until the District of Columbia becomes the 51st State of the United States of America.

Now, I recognize, of course, there are no slaves living in the District of Columbia today. But there is not a single free and equal citizen resident of the District of Columbia.

I cannot help but think of the stories that were told me of my great- grandfather, a runaway slave from Virginia. I am a third-generation Washingtonian. He was in the District of Columbia when Lincoln freed the slaves in the District of Columbia, but he was a runaway slave, so he was not free from slavery until 9 months later.

His name was Richard Holmes. My family tells many stories about Richard Holmes. This runaway slave from the District of Columbia came here to work on the streets of the District of Columbia. Actually, he came to get away from slavery.

I don't tell any heroic stories of Richard Holmes. I tell it the way it was told me. When nobody was looking, Richard Holmes just walked off that plantation. He found his way to the District of Columbia. There were not enough workers to build the streets of the District of Columbia, so he was able to get work on the streets building this city.

I understand that slave owners went around the streets of the District of Columbia looking for their slaves. The man who owned Richard Holmes found him and went up to the straw boss and said: That is my slave. I have come to get him.

The straw boss said: You called out a name. That man never answered to that name. No, he is a good worker. He is not your slave.

That is how Richard Holmes, whose name was called out, by the slave

owner, ``Richard,'' remained in the District of Columbia so I could become Eleanor Katherine Holmes and ultimately the Member who represents the District.

``Richard,'' they called out. By not answering to his name, Richard Holmes must have practiced for the day when the slaveholder would come looking for him. That is the kind of discipline I am trying to bring to my work in the Congress because freedom from slavery did not give the residents of the District of Columbia freedom.

Yet we celebrate Emancipation Day. We are pleased that the slaves in the District of Columbia were freed earlier than the Emancipation Proclamation, but that is only because the Federal Government controlled the District of Columbia, and, therefore, Abraham Lincoln could say whether there would be slaves in the District of Columbia.

In a real sense, the Federal Government still has control over the District of Columbia as I speak because the District does not even have full home rule. Yes, in 1973, the District did obtain self government. That means that the District has a Mayor and a city council and governs itself, except when the Congress of the United States decides to intrude. And intrude, it does.

Until Democrats captured the majority this session, I have had to ward off bills to eliminate all the District's gun safety laws, for example. Intrusion can be very dangerous.

Of course, now that Democrats are in the majority, such a bill does not have any chance of getting through. But I have spent most of my time in the Congress in the minority, and whatever I have had to do for the District or get to the District, I have had to do from that perch.

Emancipation Day for the District is, yes, a day off for the District, a holiday. It is just that important to us. There are parades, and there are celebrations. But it is not like George Washington's birthday, and it is not like Abraham Lincoln's birthday. The reason that it is a celebration in the District of Columbia is to remind us, the 700,000 residents who live in the District of Columbia, of our continuing obligation to work until the District and its residents are entirely free.

In this country, even small matters take work. I know because I have small matters pending. But even without the vote, I have been able to get three bills passed in only 3 months of the Congress. What it takes is work. What it takes is an insistence to keep going until you secure what residents deserve.

If I have any frustration, it is not with the work I must do to make the District the 51st State. It is with the knowledge, according to the polls, that most Americans think that the residents of the District of Columbia, their Nation's Capital, have the very same rights that they do. Of course, I am on this floor this evening to make sure that they know we do not.

The new Members who just spoke on the floor must have been shocked because they would have been among the Americans who would have thought we had the same rights that everyone else does before they were elected.

Now, I don't want to say, look, I don't have any rights, and I can't do anything for the District.

You can't face your challenges that way, Madam Speaker. I do vote in committee as the representative of the District of Columbia. I even vote on the House floor.

When I first came to Congress, I reasoned that since I could vote in committee, I ought to be able to vote in the Committee of the Whole. Sometimes we meet in the Committee of the Whole, for example, to vote on amendments. So I went to the Democratic Speaker. It was a Democratic Speaker for the first 2 years I was in Congress, Tom Foley, and I asked to be able to vote on the floor of the House.

He said: Eleanor, nobody ever said the District should be able to vote on the floor of the House, so I will have to ask advice from outside counsel.

Tom Foley sent it to outside counsel. They came back, and they said: Yes, in the Committee of the Whole, if Congress votes to allow her to vote, she should be able to vote on the House floor.

Because there was a Democratic majority, I was given the right to vote on the House floor.

I will never forget what happened afterward. My Republican friends then sued the House for giving me the right to vote on the House floor. They lost in the district court. Then they took it to the court of appeals, and they lost in the court of appeals. They knew better than to take it to the Supreme Court of the United States. So I voted on the House floor then, and I am voting on the House floor again.

I only regret that I have spent most of my time in Congress in the minority, and I have not had that right as often as the Americans I represent deserve.

The District, of course, does not even have full local control. Madam Speaker, you would think that my Republican colleagues would be the first to give them that because the bywords for Republicans are ``federalism'' and ``local control.'' Instead, as I have indicated, they have spent years trying to interfere with the District's local control.

The one thing that ought to guarantee Americans freedom from Federal interference, including the Congress of the United States, is localism. Time and again, I have asked my Republican colleagues to grant me that privilege that they think all Americans should have.

The failure to give the District our full rights is not only a violation of every precept of the American creed, but a violation of treaties that the United States has signed. For example, in 1977, the United States signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Human Rights Committee, which has oversight over that treaty, has said that the United Nations ``remains concerned that residents of the District of Columbia do not enjoy full representation in Congress, a restriction that does not seem to be compatible with article 25 of the covenant,'' the covenant the United States has signed.

One of the reasons it galls the residents of the District of Columbia not to have full rights is that, as this chart shows, the residents pay more Federal taxes than any of the 50 States. Take a look. Mississippi pays the lowest Federal taxes, but it is the District of Columbia at $12,000-plus per person that pays the highest.

If you are from New York or California, Madam Speaker, if you are from Idaho or the other Washington, you pay fewer taxes per capita than the people I represent, but you have more rights than they do.

Nothing better illustrates, I think, in a country where ``taxes'' is often a dirty word, the inequity of paying more taxes than Mississippi while Mississippi has every right the District of Columbia has. I cite Mississippi only because its residednts pay the lowest taxes per capita.

Madam Speaker, there is a second and perhaps more important reason to claim our full citizenship. That, of course, is that the residents of your Nation's Capital have fought and died in every war, including the war that created the United States of America, the Revolutionary War.

On this chart, we show the sacrifices during the 20th century when the United States fought major world wars. World War I, 635 D.C. casualties, that was more than three States. Understand, we are a city. We are smaller than most States, though about the size of seven States, but we had more casualties than three States. The Korean war, 575 D.C. casualties, that was more casualties than eight States. Moving on to World War II, we find 3,575 casualties. Note the number is going up, but that is more casualties than four States. Finally, the Vietnam war, 243 D.C. casualties, that was more than 10 States.

It is one thing to have given your treasure; it is quite another to have given the lives of your citizens.

The District, for most of its existence, has had fewer African Americans than White people. That is not the case today. It is about equal White and Black citizens.

But, when I speak of war casualties, I am reminded of citizens who have especially distinguished themselves in time of war:

The first African American general was born and raised in the District of Columbia;

The first African American Air Force general was also born in the District of Columbia;

The first African American Naval Academy graduate, born here in the District of Columbia; and

The first African American Air Force Academy graduate, born in the District of Columbia.

I cite these African Americans because the District was a segregated city as well. With segregation and no vote, you see African Americans distinguishing themselves in the Armed Forces of the United States, fighting for their country.

So we move forward to today, and we see great progress on our statehood bill. Every Democratic Senator now backs the findings of H.R. 1.

H.R. 1 is a democracy bill. It calls for many kinds of improvements in democracy, and in that bill is included findings that lay out the case for D.C. statehood. That means that those who have voted for H.R. 1 here in the House have also voted to approve statehood.

The Senate has a similar bill, but with only three sections. It is Leader Chuck Schumer's bill. Their proposals are not as fulsome as H.R. 1, but has three major components: restoring the Voting Rights Act; establishing national automatic voter registration laws; and, yes, D.C. statehood.

D.C. statehood, for Democratic Senators, ranks just that high, along with the national voting rights bills cited. In both of our Chambers, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have been full- throated supporters of D.C. statehood.

We are taking two paths to statehood, however, because so much of home rule remains unfinished. Most of home rule is done, but I think most Americans would be amazed to find out how much is not done.

For example, the District's budget still has to come to the House of Representatives. We can get budget autonomy by vote of the House and the Senate without going all the way to statehood.

Or, take a life-and-death matter. We are now in the midst of climate change with all kinds of weather we had not seen. If there are floods in the District of Columbia or hurricanes, the District of Columbia cannot call out its own D.C. National Guard. It has got to go to the President of the United States to ask him to call out the D.C. National Guard.

For goodness' sake, by the time it goes up the chain of command, half of D.C. could be blown away. That is life and death. That is what every single State has, and D.C. can get that without statehood.

So, while we recognize that in order to get statehood we would have a tough time in the Senate, we also rely on making sure that we complete home rule with matters having to do with the District of Columbia as another way to move toward getting more of our rights.

Now, again, I don't want to leave the impression that because I don't have the final vote on the House floor I just can't get anything done. I have passed three laws--the third month of Congress, going into the fourth month--already, without being able to vote for those bills.

And, I must say, I am very humbled, but I also am proud at the same time, that the organization that ranks Members of Congress has ranked me as the most effective Democrat in the Congress, and that is without having a vote.

To quote them, they said: The Center defines legislative effectiveness as the ``proven ability to advance a Member's agenda items through the legislative process and into law.'' That means passing bills. And it went on to say that Norton's ranking is ``noteworthy because she is a nonvoting Member.''

I point that out because I don't want my residents, especially, to hear me here on the floor indicating how important statehood is to then say: Well, I don't guess Eleanor Holmes Norton can do anything for us until she finally gets statehood.

I point out that I will be measured not by whether I got statehood. I may not get it. I will be measured by what I was able to get for the District of Columbia, whose residents voted for me to come to Congress.

Yes, only statehood can give the District the bucket of rights, the full bucket it is entitled to. Only statehood can make the District fully equal to the residents of the States. Only statehood can mean for the District what it means for the smallest States, that you can have two Senators as well as a Member of the House.

The District of Columbia has no Senators, so I have to do the work of both Houses. That is not how it is supposed to work.

So, instead of being disheartened, I am, indeed, elated that we already have 202 sponsors, or cosponsors, for D.C. statehood. It takes 218 to pass the bill.

People rushed onto the bill because of the knowledge that there is something wrong that there are people in our country who do not have the same rights that others have, and for no good reason.

If you were to ask people, ``Well, why not?'' today they would not be able to tell you. Without going into elaborate detail, I will tell you that it was a fluke that the District does not have full rights, a fluke having to do with a mishap or an incident when the Capitol was in Philadelphia and the troops from the Revolutionary War marched on the then-Capitol demanding their pensions.

The Framers were caught flat-footed and said: Oh, my goodness. We better make sure that the Capitol is not part of any State, and this is part of Pennsylvania.

Well, of course, we know that that was cured long ago. The District should not be part of any State, doesn't want to be part of any State, but there are plenty of armed troops to protect the District from people marching on the District or the Capitol for their pensions or any other rights.

I am grateful to represent the District of Columbia. I am grateful because I love a good fight. I loved it as a kid in the civil rights movement. I loved it when I grew up in the District of Columbia, going to segregated schools and recognizing that all I had to do was get a good education and I could get out of that too.

But I take it as an honor and a privilege to represent residents who, in each and every way, are fully equal to each and every American and to do all that I possibly can to make that feeling reality in the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 42 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, April 10, 2019, at 9 a.m.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce a bill that would exempt from federal government shutdowns the federal and independent civil and criminal justice system law enforcement agencies that are exclusively or primarily federally funded but have exclusive jurisdiction over District of Columbia matters. This bill is modeled on a provision I have been able to get enacted each year since the 2013 shutdown to exempt the D.C. government from shutdowns.

This bill would exempt the following agencies from federal government shutdowns: Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, D.C. Courts, D.C. Public Defender Service, D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure, D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission, and D.C. Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. These agencies are not under the District's control and are funded exclusively by the federal government, with one exception, the D.C. Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, which is an independent agency within the D.C. government with federal members primarily, but not exclusively, funded by the federal government. However, these agencies provide critical local services to the District, including law enforcement, and should continue to function during a shutdown.

Each of these agencies was adversely affected by the recent 35-day shutdown, including canceled services and furloughed employees. My bill would allow these agencies to continue to function during a shutdown, in much the same way that the D.C. government itself is now exempt from shutting down during a federal shutdown. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

The world has changed, my friends, since our last reauthorization of VAWA. This bill updates VAWA to cover new victims of domestic violence that were not covered in our prior bill and desperately need protection.

In addition, the #MeToo movement has made women more determined concerning their rights than ever before.

Perhaps the most desperate need of victims of domestic violence is for sanctuary, shelter, emergency housing, and affordable housing, all in short supply.

Victims who stay with an abuser risk everything: homelessness, loss of custody of children, more abuse, and even injury and death.

Victims who remain with an abuser in 40 to 50 percent of cases also see their children abused.

Forty to as high as 70 percent of female homicide victims were murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in a relationship where there had been ongoing abuse.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the most serious issue confronting victims is no alternative place to live or even to shelter. One-third of survivors become homeless immediately after separating from partners.

Our bill bars the eviction of the victim until suitable housing or a termination of a lease without penalty can occur. Grants to help homeless victims achieve stability are necessary to prevent recurrent bouts of homelessness from domestic violence.

This reauthorization is desperately needed without delay. I strongly urge its passage.

Madam Speaker, today is Equal Pay Day, which marks the number of additional days a woman must work to earn what a man earned the prior year. The 1963 Equal Pay Act (EPA), the first of the great civil rights statutes of the 1960s, has grown creaky with age and needs updating to reflect the new workforce, in which women work almost as much as men.

The best case for a stronger and updated EPA occurred here in the Congress in 2003, when female custodians in the House and Senate won an EPA case after showing that female workers were paid a dollar less per hour for doing the same or similar work as males. Had these women not been represented by their union, they would have had an almost impossible task in using the rules for bringing and sustaining an EPA class action lawsuit.

Based on my own experience as the first woman to chair the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I again introduce the Fair Pay Act (FPA) on behalf of the average female worker, who is often first steered to, and then locked into, jobs with wages that are deeply influenced by the gender of individuals who have traditionally held such jobs. Much of the wage inequality women experience today is because of employer-steering and deeply rooted wage stereotypes, which result in wages paid according to gender and not according to the skill necessary to do the job. I introduce the FPA because the pay disparity most women face today stems mainly from the segregation of women and men in different jobs and paying women in female-dominated jobs systematically less. Two-thirds of white women and three quarters of African-American women work in just three areas: sales/clerical, service and factories. We need more aggressive strategies to break through the societal barriers present throughout history the world over, as well as employer-steering based on gender, which is as old as paid employment itself.

The FPA requires that if men and women are doing comparable work, they are to be paid comparable wages. If a woman, for example, is an emergency services operator, a female-dominated profession, she should not be paid less than a fire dispatcher, a male-dominated profession, simply because each of these jobs has been dominated by one sex. If a woman is a social worker, a traditionally female occupation, she should not earn less than a probation officer, a traditionally male job, simply because of the gender associated with each of these jobs.

The FPA, like the EPA, will not tamper with the legal burden. Under the FPA, as under the EPA, the burden will be on the plaintiff to prove discrimination. The plaintiff must show that the reason for the disparate treatment is gender discrimination, not legitimate market factors.

Remedies to achieve comparable pay for men and women are not radical or unprecedented. State governments, in red and blue states alike, have shown that it is possible to eliminate the part of the pay gap that is due to discrimination. Twenty state governments have adjusted wages for female-dominated professions, raising pay for teachers, nurses, clerical workers, librarians, and other female-dominated jobs that paid less than comparable male-dominated jobs. Minnesota, for example, implemented a pay equity plan when it found that traditionally female jobs paid 20 percent less than comparable traditionally male jobs. There may well be some portion of a gender wage gap that is traceable to market factors, but 20 states have shown that you can tackle the gender discrimination-based wage gap without interfering in the market system. States generally have closed the wage gap over a period of four to five years at a one-time cost of no more than three to four percent of payroll.

In addition, many female workers routinely achieve pay equity through collective bargaining, and countless employers provide it on their own as they see women shifting out of vital female-dominated occupations as a result of the shortage of skilled workers, as well as because of the unfairness to women. Unequal pay has been built into the way women have been treated since Adam and Eve. To dislodge such deep-seated and pervasive treatment, we must go to the source, the traditionally female occupations, where pay is linked with gender and always has been.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Alice Paul Tapper, a District of Columbia native, for her activism creating a nationwide Raise Your Hand movement as a Girl Scout Cadette in Girl Scouts Nation's Capital.

Alice Paul Tapper was born in Washington, D.C. to humanitarian Jennifer Tapper and journalist Jake Tapper. She is a sixth grade student at Maret School. Raise Your Hand is the brainchild of Alice, who witnessed firsthand that girls were shying away from raising their hand in class or volunteering at school activities. She brought the issue to the attention of her Girl Scout troop, and they agreed that Girl Scouts should have a patch for that. Alice realized this type of empowerment could only take place in a girl-led organization.

Alice's observations are also grounded in research. Girls' self- confidence drops 3.4 times below boy's, especially between the ages of eight and 12. Working with Girl Scouts Nation's Capital, the Raise Your Hand patch, was launched. Girls earn the patch after pledging to raise their hands more in class and recruiting other girls to do the same. The patch was put into circulation nationwide in October 2017.

Today, over 12,000 girls and women from around the globe have taken the pledge and earned the patch. Alice has received national attention for the Raise Your Hand movement, including appearing on local news and being one of the youngest persons to get an op-ed published in the New York Times.

Alice will bring her message to young readers in a children's book, Raise Your Hand, published by Penguin Young. The book chronicles Alice's advocacy initiative for girls and will be released March 26, 2019, after she appears on the Ellen Show on March 22nd. Alice has donated her advance of $25,000, as well as a matching donation from Oprah Winfrey, to Girl Scouts Nation's Capital, so that more girls can grow in confidence.

Madam Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Alice Paul Tapper for her initiative to elevate girls' self-esteem and to encourage them to raise their hands in the District of Columbia and around the world.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing another outstanding achievement by the District of Columbia National Guard. On February 1, 2019 Burkina Faso became the 76th nation to join the State Partnership Program--a Department of Defense joint security cooperation program administered by the National Guard. The program is executed by the individual states, territories and the District of Columbia. I am proud to inform this body that the D.C. National Guard and the Burkina Faso Armed Forces will now be establishing a military-to-military relationship focused on security cooperation.

The State Partnership Program provides an equally beneficial relationship between armed forces of partnering U.S. National Guard states, territories, the District of Columbia and foreign nations. It is administered by the National Guard Bureau and guided by State Department foreign policy goals. These partnerships support Combatant Command campaign objectives, strengthen alliances, provide cost- effective subject matter expert engagements and enhance defense security.

The District of Columbia National Guard's partnership with Burkina Faso will be in addition to the current partnership between the D.C. National Guard and Jamaica. Since 1999, the District of Columbia National Guard has had a successful and productive partnership with Jamaica. In 2018, the D.C. National Guard and the Jamaica Defense Forces conducted 17 key subject matter expert engagements including work on drug-trafficking, military police response and domestic security, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief response, and preparation for medical and dental personnel, among other activities.

The Burkina Faso state partnership would not have happened without the leadership of Major General William J. Walker, the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard, Brigadier General Aaron R. Dean II, the Adjutant General D.C. National Guard, Justin Som, Burkina Faso's Secretary General of the Minister of Defense, Andrew R. Young, the U.S. Ambassador to Burkina Faso Brigadier, General Moses Miningou, the Chief of General Staff for the National Armed Forces of Burkina Faso, and Brigadier General Steven deMilliano, U.S. Air Force, Deputy Director for Strategy, Engagement and Programs Directorate at United States Africa Command. Many others contributed as well from the D.C. National Guard, Department of Defense, National Guard Bureau and State Department.

As the D.C. National Guard embarks on this new mission, I look forward to supporting them every step of the way. I trust through their dedication and sacrifices, they will help strengthen shared national security goals while fostering a partnership of peace, prosperity, and freedom for the people of Burkina Faso and the region.