Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this time on the floor to speak about making the District of Columbia the 51st State.

I am not going to simply glow about how important that would be for my district, because we have found that most Americans believe we already have the same rights they do.

I want to describe one of the oldest cities in the United States, a city that is bigger than two States, that is to say, has more residents than two States, more residents than Vermont, more residents than Wyoming, and about as many residents as seven States of the Union.

The people I represent, 700,000 of them, are number one in taxes paid to support the Government of the United States, yet they have no representation whatsoever in that body down the hall, the Senate of the United States.

In fact, I am grateful that the House understands that I should vote in committee, where most of the work is done, but when a bill comes to the House floor, even if that bill singularly affects the residents of the District of Columbia, every Member of this body, except the Member who represents the District of Columbia, can vote on that bill.

That is not justice, that is un-American, and it offers strong evidence, I think, of the underlying reasons why the District of Columbia should become the 51st State of the Union.

We are making progress. We have got almost all the Democrats on our statehood bill. And if there is Democratic control of the next Congress, I will seek a vote on D.C. statehood on the House floor.

I got a vote on D.C. statehood when I first came to the Congress. It is time to have another vote on D.C. statehood.

We have more than half of the Democrats in the Senate, and I will get all the Democrats in the House and all the Democrats in the Senate before the end of the 115th Congress.

Most Members of the House come to this place knowing little about the Capital City. I don't blame them. I don't see why they should know much about it, except that it is the tourist mecca of our country; that 30 million

people from around the world, including from their States, come to see the extraordinary monuments in our city.

So Members shouldn't know any more about my district than I know about their districts, and yet Members come to this floor to not only vote on matters affecting my district, but on laws that would take away or overturn laws passed by the legitimate government of the District of Columbia.

When Members come, I greet them, offer them help in finding housing and the rest, and that is about the end of it.

So if they come to the House to vote, they don't know anything more about the city, except if they happen to stay here, and we welcome them, than they did when they walked in the door.

But every Member needs to know that 700,000 Americans host them, and they need to know, when they are called upon to interfere with the local laws of the District of Columbia, they should treat our local laws the way they would have their local laws treated.

I particularly speak of my Republican colleagues, who are the chief proponents of local control. They don't want the Federal Government into not only their business, but sometimes they try to get the Federal Government out of Federal business, and yet it is my Republican colleagues who are the chief abusers of what we call District Home Rule, what Americans call the right to self-government.

I need to give you examples of what I mean when I say Members try to overturn our laws, and I need to say that I often am able to keep them from doing so, even without a vote on this House floor, because of the way I think through what my role is.

I have got to think of a way to keep people who overwhelmingly outnumber me, obviously, and are the majority in this House, from overturning my own local laws. We have barely succeeded in doing so, but I will give you an idea of what I mean.

I should begin by saying that because this is a city, a big city, that its laws would be more progressive than in many other parts of the United States.

For example, the District of Columbia government has passed a Death With Dignity Act. This is a controversial bill. Six States have passed it, including States represented by the Republican leadership of this House. It is a bill that allows a person to take his own life with minimal help from a physician. It is very controversial. Six States have passed it; so has the District of Columbia. It is nobody's business but theirs.

I have kept this law from being overturned, but I have had to fight to do so for at least three years.

Let me give you another example: the Local Budget Autonomy Act. Why would there be a Local Budget Autonomy Act? Everybody knows that if you levy your own local taxes, no one should have anything to do with that, but the District of Columbia does not have the right to have the final say on its own budget, because any Member of the Congress can try to overturn the District's budget.

Are they interested in the budget? Do they try to overturn the budget itself? No. But when the budget comes here, Republicans use it as a vehicle to overturn laws that they don't agree with, and that is why our budget is here, this budget that was raised by the residents of the District of Columbia, this local budget.

In order to keep our budget from coming here at all--what is it doing here--a referendum overwhelmingly passed by residents called the Local Budget Autonomy Amendment Act essentially said, that is it. It shouldn't come here.

The House has tried to repeal that at least three times. I have saved it from being repealed largely from marching over to the Senate.

Perhaps the most persistent attempt on the part of the Congress are efforts to wipe out the District's gun safety laws. It is a big city and, yes, big cities are where you have most of the gun violence, so the District has tough gun safety laws. And yet, every single year I have to protect our gun safety laws from Members of Congress who are not answerable, are in no ways responsive, to the people of the District of Columbia.

Our residents can't vote them out of office. They can vote only me out of office. They can't touch them. If that doesn't fly in the face of American democracy, I can't tell you what does.

Senator Marco Rubio has introduced a bill to wipe out all of our gun safety laws since 2015. I have saved D.C. gun laws from being eliminated. But Senator Marco Rubio from the State of Florida, where the Parkland youngsters are, who have taken nationwide their own campaign to get this Congress to pass sensible gun laws.

Yet Senator Rubio, aided by Representative Tom Garrett of this body, would eliminate all of the District's gun safety laws, including the District's ban on guns in schools; including making the District of Columbia a unique exception to a Federal law called Gun-Free School Zones Act, which means you cannot have a gun within a school zone. Everybody could have that except the District of Columbia.

Senator Rubio and Representative Garrett would repeal the District's ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. Assault weapons in the Nation's capital? Imagine who would be endangered if there were assault weapons here? And I do not refer to the residents of the District of Columbia alone.

Anyone who visits our city will often find traffic stopped while caravans of high-level officials go by. Sometimes they will be Members of Congress. More often they will be world figures. Imagine if just anybody could have an assault weapon in the Nation's capital, particularly today.

Yes, I have been able to stop it. But why should I have been put to that effort when I represent 700,000 tax-paying citizens of the United States who had already done it?

I do have to show you how low or laughable these efforts can become. I have stopped a bill that prohibited my city from using its own funds to keep certain kinds of flushable products from being sold in the District of Columbia. They stop up toilets.

The Member who proposed this, Representative Andy Harris of Maryland, perhaps because it is so laughable, ultimately withdrew it. We came on the House floor to expose it.

But I cite the flushable wipes amendment to show these anti home rule efforts know no bounds. You might ask, well, why would Representative Andy Harris want to do this? I don't know for sure, except that there is a manufacturer of those wipes that has surfaced and, as you may know, many Members get campaign funds from people who ask them to place matters in bills. They don't ask them to put them in our appropriations, but that is what happened, and I had to get that one out. I do want to publicly thank Representative Harris for withdrawing his amendment.

To give you some sense, though, of how the District of Columbia has to pay attention, not only to its own local laws and preserving them, but has to ask its Member to do what every other Member does a lot on national matters. So while I am working on national bills, during the first year of the Trump Presidency, I had to defeat 15 bills to overturn the District's gun laws.

I had to block bills that would gut the public school system laws by making D.C. use its own local funds for private schools. Yet Congress has defeated an education bill that defeated amendments to an education bill that would have allowed school districts to spend its own money on private schools.

They took private school vouchers out of the national bill, but a Member tried to put vouchers on the District. Defeated that one. And there are others, but I won't go down the list of them all.

Understand that that work is important to my District, but it is work that no other Member has to pursue because you cannot interfere with the local laws of any other Member.

At the same time, however, for example, I had and did get full funding to rehabilitate the Memorial Bridge. That happens to be important because millions of Americans use that bridge. They come to Arlington Memorial Cemetery and use that bridge to get there. They come to the Nation's Capitol to see our iconic sights, and they use that bridge. Now that was a national bill. That is the kind of bill, Federal bill, that most Members work on that they are proud of.

I bring it up because that work, which as a Member of Congress I must do for the Nation, as well as my city, is quite apart from protecting the local laws of my city.

Let's take the affordable healthcare act. Virginia has just signed on, belatedly, to the affordable healthcare act. I am in the national fight with most Members, certainly on my side of the aisle, to maintain that law. And we have maintained that law. In spite of President Trump's attempt to overturn it. In spite of more than 40 attempts by my Republican colleagues to overturn it.

D.C. needed it, because with the ACA, 96 percent of D.C. residents are now covered by healthcare. That means virtually everybody. But in that effort I am in league with other Members on a national law. That is what I should be paying attention to, first and foremost.

Another example of a national law which is important to the Nation and to me is passage of the Dream Act, to protect these children who were brought to the United States as infants or small children by their parents, who know no other country, and now face deportation because technically they, of course, are not citizens; even though they don't know El Salvador or Mexico or any other of the countries from which they would have come.

Of the 800,000 Dreamers, 800 of them are in the District of Columbia, so I am like many Members who come to the floor on that issue. But that is a national bill. That is what I am supposed to do in the Congress.

In our city, if somehow we could not save the Dreamers, that would be $50 million annually gone from our economy; that is how productive they are. I have had a town meeting with them. These are the most impressive young people I have ever seen speak to our residents.

Mr. Speaker, could I ask how much time I have remaining.

After you have heard all of these abuses of American democracy, you may have some understanding why I believe that the District of Columbia should become a State, and why statehood is the only remedy for the abuses that I have described.

But, do not think that there are no Republicans who understand some of the issues I have described. I regret that my good friend, a conservative Republican, Representative Darrell Issa--and I say I regret, because I don't think that every Republican should be put in the same category.

I cite Rep. Darrell Issa, because he was chair of a committee on which I serve, and decided to have a hearing on our local jurisdiction. He asked the Mayor to come, the chair of the City Council, and those who handle the budget. He listened and he indicated his surprise to know that the District's financial condition and reserves and its growth as a local economy, were among the best in the Nation.

After that hearing, learning, for example, that our budget was the envy of the States, Representative Issa himself endorsed budget autonomy and worked tirelessly with me and with local officials, as well as Republican interest groups, to try to secure at least the autonomy over our budget; at least over our budget. These are what we call the components of statehood.

So even if my Republican friends are not for statehood, there is no reason not to be or to stand against the elements of statehood. And we certainly may well get those before we get statehood itself.

For example, clemency. The President has the authority of clemency over the District of Columbia. Well, he doesn't know a thing about the District and, as a result, when clemency comes out, normally the District inmates are not even included. That is a classic matter for local governments.

Yes, budget autonomy is one of them. Even the District's local laws have to come here and sit for 60 days, 30 days, or for criminal laws, 60 days, to see if anybody wants to overturn these laws. This is a remnant of more than 200 years ago, when the District had no home rule, as we called it, or self-government.

Of course the Congress doesn't choose to use that section, so they could get rid of this legislative autonomy because they reserve their energy for the budget. With a budget here, they use that as the vehicle to overturn the District's laws.

What I think most Members of Congress do not know is that the District's local economy is one of the strongest in the Nation, and let me prove that.

It has got a $12.5 billion budget. That is larger than the budget of 12 States. My district has a $1.75 billion surplus. That kind of surplus, that large surplus, almost $2 billion, is the envy of the States.

My district has a per capita income higher than that of any State, higher than that of California, of Massachusetts, of New York. That is one of the reasons why the people I represent pay the highest taxes per capita in the United States.

The total income of the residents of the District of Columbia is higher than the income of seven States. Its consumption, given its income expenditures, is higher than those of any State. And, of course, what we are seeing is a city that is flourishing. Its population growth rate is the highest since the 2010 Census. In fact, the District now has a larger population, as I indicated, than two other States that have representation to vote on this House floor.

DC would only qualify for one vote, and Vermont and Wyoming, have two Senators as well--even with fewer residents than the number who live in the Nation's Capital.

One way to understand why the residents of the District of Columbia resent being treated as second-class citizens is to understand its highest tax rate, Federal tax rate--the highest in the Nation--amounts to $12,000 per resident, more per capita than any residents of any States. Yet no matter what the bill, no matter how impacted the District is, I will not vote on that bill.

What hurts more than the failure to allow the District to vote on most bills is the failure to allow the District to vote on bills to go to war. The residents of this city have fought and died in every war, including the war that created the United States of America.

Please remember the slogan that the Framers and the residents threw up to win their freedom. It wasn't, ``Freedom in the large.'' It was, ``No taxation without representation.''

We ask for statehood based on the original understanding of the Founders of our Nation who were willing and, indeed, did go to war for the principle of no taxation without representation. Well, the people I represent have gone to war without a vote to go to war and without a vote upon returning from war.

The sacrifices should be clear to see. World War I--and here we are talking about casualties--more than three States. World War II, more casualties from the District of Columbia than four States. And then it only goes up. The Korean war had more casualties than eight States. And, of course, the Vietnam war had more casualties than 10 States.

That ought to be reason enough for the District of Columbia to be made the 51st State. More important than paying the highest Federal taxes per capita, more important than being excluded from a vote on the floor of the Senate, it is the sacrifices our residents have made for their country that speak loudest, most prophetically, about the right of residents to be treated equally.

May I inquire of the time remaining, please.

Mr. Speaker, it is not as if the Congress of the United States has never understood the injustices before you. The reason I come to the House floor today is because there is turnover in the House all the time and many Members have never heard this until now.

And why not? Because you don't listen to what happens to somebody else's district. You are too busy dealing with your own district.

That is how we like it, and that is how we would like to make it for every Member of the House.

Yes, almost 45 years ago, the House understood the injustice of what was then the case. The District had no self-

government. It intermittently had some self-government in the 19th century--and may I add, that the height of that self-government was about the same as the District has now: a Delegate Member of the House and the right to local government.

And who gave them that? It was the post-Civil War Congress, which was a Republican Congress.

The Republicans lost their way, and they are chiefly responsible now for the District's not having what their own party understood should happen after the Civil War. They had fought a Civil War for democracy for everyone, and they, indeed, began the home rule process that was lost after Reconstruction and renewed again almost 45 years ago with the 1974 Home Rule Act.

Here again in the 20th it wasn't the Democrats who were solely responsible. Yes, it was a Democratic Congress, but it was a Republican President, President Richard Nixon. He said, in signing the Home Rule Act: ``As a longtime supporter of self-government for the District of Columbia, I am pleased to sign into law a measure which is of historic significance for the citizens of our Nation's Capital.''

Remember, this is President Nixon talking, saying: ``I first voted for home rule as a Member of the House of Representatives in 1948, and I have endorsed the enactment of home rule legislation during both my terms as President.''

Then he went on to say: ``. . . it is particularly appropriate to assure those persons who live in our Capital City rights and privileges which have long been enjoyed by most of their countrymen.''

That was a Republican President and a Democratic House acting in a bipartisan way to give the District self-government, a self-government which it has handled better than most of the State and city governments since.

And that is not the only example of Republicans working with us to do what almost surely will take some bipartisanship. Representative Tom Davis of Virginia worked with me on a bill that, in fact, got a vote in both houses and, indeed, we would now have in the District, a House vote if that bill had passed.

I was in the minority. Representative Tom Davis was in the majority as a Republican. I regret that he has resigned from Congress to go on to higher and better things, as he saw it. He worked with me and had hearings. What he discovered was that the State of Utah, a very Republican State, had missed getting a vote it thought due that State, and Representative Davis discussed with me the possibility of pairing the District of Columbia with Utah--one Democratic vote and one Republican vote--and nobody would gain if the District got a House vote.

Now, Representative Tom Davis was not for statehood, but he did not believe that we would call it the people's House without giving the residents of the District of Columbia a vote in that House.

The Governor of Utah came to testify for it. The Republican Members from the House and the Senate voted for it. It was a one-to-one, and it was perhaps the best chance for voting rights, certainly, that we have had since the creation of the Republic.

Well, if we got that kind of bipartisan support for at least the House vote, why doesn't the District of Columbia have a vote on the House floor as I speak? The answer is that the National Rifle Association succeeded in getting a Member to attach to the bill, in the House, an amendment that, in exchange for the House vote, the District would have had to give up all of its gun safety laws.

I have just indicated to you the kinds of sacrifice that would have meant. The assault weapons ban would be gone, just to name, perhaps, the worst of them. That is an offer we had to refuse, and it is the closest we have come to equal rights as a Federal district.

But it is not the closest we will ever come. We will give priority during the next Congress to budget autonomy, autonomy over our own budget; legislative autonomy, to keep our legislation from having to come to this floor.

A local prosecutor--the DA who everyone associates with your local jurisdiction is not who enforces criminal law in the District of Columbia. It is the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia who does both local law, local criminal law, and, of course, Federal law.

Mayoral control over the National Guard; your Governor can call out your National Guard because only he knows the ins and outs of safety when there are issues affecting the National Guard. The National Guard is usually used for things that are local in nature, such as hurricanes and flooding.

The President knows almost nothing about that or about the authority to grant clemency, as I mentioned earlier in these remarks. Also, of course, control over the appointment of local judges and the operations of the local courts. Yes, D.C. courts are title I courts. What that means is that these judges who handle only local matters--local criminal and civil matters--are appointed by the President of the United States and have to stand in line to get approved by the Senate of the United States.

I have simply summarized some of the hardships of not being treated as an equal jurisdiction under the Constitution of the United States and some of the benefits of citizenship that the District would obtain if such equality were indeed granted.

It is true that the District has never achieved this equality, but I do not fret that it is out of hand. When the next Congress resumes, I have indicated any number of things I will pursue. In addition, if my party controls this Chamber, I will ask for a vote on the House floor. I will ask for that vote, even though I am not certain by any means that that vote would result in statehood. I will ask for that vote, because I want to put it to this body exactly what it means not to have the same rights they have.

When my party controlled this House, I did not get statehood, but I was able to get what is called the vote in the Committee of the Whole. That is a vote on some business on the House floor.

My Republican friends actually sued the House for allowing the District of Columbia, whose residents are number one per capita in Federal taxes, this vote on the House floor. They went to the Federal District Court, then to the Court of Appeals, but they did not have the gumption to go to the Supreme Court.

So I voted for my District at least on some matters in the Committee of the Whole. And I will seek that vote, even short of statehood.

I represent one of the Nation's oldest cities. I represent 700,000 residents who have overpaid their dues--have overpaid them in war, have overpaid them in taxes. We are overdue as we pursue democracy for other people around the world in assuring that there is democracy for everyone in our own country. We should begin with the residents of our own proud Nation's capital.

I ask the House to think deeply about what lies in your hands, and that is not only the ability, but the obligation to make the 700,000 residents of the District of Columbia whole by making the District of Columbia the 51st State of the United States of America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Angel Anderson and her store, The SpiceSuite, on becoming the 2018 District of Columbia Small Business of the Year. This distinction is awarded as part of our 21st annual District of Columbia Small Business Fair, which we are holding today at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center.

This year, we are proud to honor Angel and The SpiceSuite, a store located at 6902 4th Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20012 where customers can customize spice blends and find unique products like coconut vanilla infused honey and blueberry sugar. Angel opened The SpiceSuite just two years ago as the manifestation of a dream she did not know she had, and has since cultivated it into a community staple. A D.C. native, Angel graduated from Banneker High School, and went on to earn both her bachelor's and master's degrees in psychology from Howard University. After completing her studies, she worked in education for nine years, focusing mainly on underserved communities. Angel began her teaching career at the District's Oak Hill Youth Center, eventually moving on to be a counselor and later an assistant principal at the Cesar Chavez Public Charter School.

The SpiceSuite is an extension of Angel's passion for community service. She operates the store as an avenue to promote other women- owned small businesses by sharing its space with these businesses to launch and sell their products. She has offered this opportunity to over 200 small businesses to date, at no cost to them. Angel continues to employ the various platforms at her disposal to engage the public and advocate for the underserved.

Our fair highlights the importance of small businesses to the District's economy. It provides critical information, counseling and resources to aspiring and current D.C. small business owners. Small businesses are a crucial lifeline in our local economy, and the District thrives because of the expanding success of small businesses throughout the District. We thank the Washington Convention Center for hosting us again this year; the workshop experts who are providing valuable information and assistance to small businesses; and, of course, all of the small business participants.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Angel Anderson, as well as in celebrating small businesses across the District. In the District and in districts around the country, small businesses continue to make indispensable contributions to our economies and communities.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce the McIntire- Stennis Act District of Columbia Equality Act, which would amend the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act (Act) to make the District of Columbia eligible for funding. The District is treated as a state under federal programs with a few exceptions, most of them simply oversights or failures to update. This legislation would rectify the exception in the Act, ensuring equitable treatment for the District and allowing the District to benefit from the important funding opportunities available under the Act.

The Act provides U.S. states and territories with formula funds to support state-designated institutions' cooperative forestry research programs. The Act defines ``State'' to include Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. The District's notable, but faulty, absence from this definition makes it ineligible for grant funds that would support research at the University of the District of Columbia's (UDC) College of Agriculture, Urban Stability, and Environmental Science, a program that complements the city's ongoing forestry efforts. UDC is the nation's only urban land-grant university.

We appreciate that Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam are included under the definition of ``State,'' though, unlike the District of Columbia, their residents do not pay federal income taxes. It would be particularly troubling if the District, whose residents pay the highest amount per capita in federal income taxes, which support farm and other federal programs, were to continue to be excluded.

We have heard that the District may be excluded because of its lack of local timber production. However, the Act says, ``[i]n making such apportionments, consideration shall be given to pertinent factors including'' local timber production. Proximity to timber is, therefore, only one in a non-exclusive list of factors that are part of the larger analysis regarding the apportionments. Excluding the District from the definition of ``State'' merely because it is not located in an area with a timber industry runs counter to the intent of the Act. While timber production can be a factor in determining the amount of state allocations, there is no reason that the District should be excluded from the Act.

We believe, therefore, that the omission of the District must have been the result of an oversight during the original drafting of the Act. However, as you can imagine, this omission has serious consequences for the District, rendering UDC ineligible for these formula grant funds. Passage of this bill would allow students and researchers in the nation's capital to take part in this important forestry program.

I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Courts Vacancy Reduction Act. This bill would allow local District of Columbia court nominees to be seated after a 30-day congressional review period unless a resolution of disapproval is enacted during that period. Currently, nominees cannot be seated without affirmative Senate approval. The congressional review process for nominees would be the same one used for legislation passed by the D.C. Council. It is therefore a reliable process, long-recognized by Congress. My bill is prompted by the unique requirement that judges for the local D.C. courts be confirmed by the Senate, where nominees for the federal courts, understandably, get the primary focus and priority. There is currently an urgency facing the District's criminal and civil justice systems, and the D.C. courts have raised serious concerns due to longstanding vacancies.

Whether under Democratic or Republican control of the Senate, the local D.C. courts regularly face vacancy crises, which harm the operations of the judicial system in the District. Congress created the D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission (JNC) to recommend candidates, and Congress should generally defer to its judgment. This bill is a compromise, useful to all concerned, that retains a congressional role while saving the Senate time by removing the need for committee and floor action and increasing the odds that D.C. will have a full complement of local judges.

Currently, there are 10 vacancies out of 62 authorized judges on the D.C. Superior Court and two vacancies out of nine authorized judges on the D.C. Court of Appeals. In the current Congress, only one judge has been confirmed.

Both pre- and post-home rule, the District has never had control over the nomination and approval process of local D.C. judges. My bill would not alter the role of the JNC or the President in the nomination process. Under the Home Rule Act, the JNC recommends to the President a list of three persons for each vacancy on the Superior Court and Court of Appeals. The President must nominate a candidate recommended by the JNC within 60 days to the Senate for advice and consent. If the President fails to nominate such a person within 60 days, the JNC must nominate a recommended person directly to the Senate for advice and consent. The Senate has no obligation to provide its advice and consent. Under this bill, once a name has been transmitted to Congress, the nomination would be deemed approved unless a resolution of disapproval is enacted into law during a 30-legislative-day review period.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Scott Fleming for his 17 years of outstanding service as Associate Vice President for Federal Relations at Georgetown University here in the District of Columbia.

In February 2001, Scott joined Georgetown after an extensive career in public service. During his time at Georgetown, he has helped secure crucial support for various student financial aid programs, Title VI international programs and programs managed by the school's Center for Intercultural Education and Development. In addition, he has served as a member of Georgetown's veterans support team to help increase student benefits for veterans who attend Georgetown, and has worked on legislation to protect Dreamers. Scott has also served as a faculty mentor with the Georgetown Scholarship Program, where he hosted students at his home on numerous occasions, and has participated in Georgetown's Community Scholars Program.

Scott has also taught several modules at Georgetown's McCourt School of Public Policy on the issues of lobbying and government relations, and has participated in the Georgetown Summer Fellows Program as a faculty advisor. He is a former member of Georgetown's Licensing Oversight Committee and the Board of Advisors for Georgetown's Walsh

Scholars Initiative. Currently, Scott serves as Georgetown's representative on the Worker Rights Consortium Board.

Scott graduated with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Foreign Service from Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and received a Master's Degree in Public Policy from the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas-Austin. Prior to his work at Georgetown, Scott served in multiple leadership positions at the U.S. Department of Education, and served in various professional staff positions for Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Scott Fleming, a friend of many Members of Congress and staff, including many who are graduates of Georgetown University, for his many years of outstanding service as Associate Vice President for Federal Relations at Georgetown University.

Mr. Speaker, this Memorial Day Week, May 22nd to 28th, the District of Columbia celebrates the 28th annual D.C. Black Pride with its theme, ``Communities Together Building Communities.''

The multi-day festival begins May 22nd with the D.C. Black Pride Awards Reception at The Park at 14th Street and concludes May 28th with a Legendary Meatloaf Apocalypse Chapter X at the Stadium Club. In between, D.C. Black Pride includes community town halls, educational workshops, a poetry slam hosted by Mary Bowman, an interfaith worship service and various social events, including breakfast, brunch, dinner and happy hours. Various performances by musicians, dancers and artists enliven the festival. Monday, the festival's penultimate day, culminates in the main event, a Cultural Arts and Wellness Exposition, sponsored by Daryl Wilson Promotions and D.C. Black Pride at Fort Dupont Park.

The D.C. Black Pride festival commenced my first year in Congress on Sunday, May 26, 1991, at Banneker Field on Georgia Avenue, across the street from Howard University. I have watched it mature from an ad hoc event to what is now widely considered to be one of the world's preeminent Black Pride celebrations. It now draws more than 42,000 participants from the United States, Africa, Europe and the Americas to our nation's capital.

D.C. Black Pride fostered the beginning of the Center for Black Equity (formerly known as the International Federation of Black Prides, Inc.) and the ``Black Pride Movement,'' which now consists of 40 Black Prides on four continents. I commend Paloma Afework, Ralph Ferguson, Shannon Garcon, Gladece Knight, and Reginald Shaw-Richardson, the volunteer Advisory Board that assists Earl D. Fowlkes, Jr., C. Hawkins, Genise Chambers-Woods and Kenya Hutton with the coordination, planning, and execution of D.C. Black Pride. I also take pride in noting that this year, Earl continues his service into a third decade of involvement with both D.C. Black Pride and the Black Pride Movement around the globe.

As Black Pride comes to town, I take this opportunity to inform the celebrants and to remind my colleagues of the limitations Congress has placed on the District of Columbia. Despite paying more federal taxes than 22 states and paying the highest per capita federal taxes in the United States, D.C. residents still have no full voting representation in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in welcoming all attending the 28th annual D.C. Black Pride celebration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Reducing the Effects of the Cyberattack on OPM Victims Emergency Response Act of 2018 (the RECOVER Act), which would require the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to make permanent the free identity protection coverage that Congress required OPM to provide for 10 years to individuals whose Social Security Numbers were potentially compromised during the OPM data breaches. In 2015, OPM reported that the personally identifiable information of as many as 25.7 million current, former and prospective federal employees and contractors was stolen in two data breaches. I appreciate that Representative C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger is cosponsoring this bill.

After OPM announced that it would offer identity protection coverage of limited duration and value, Senator Ben Cardin and I introduced the RECOVER Act in July 2015, which would have provided affected individuals lifetime protection and at least $5 million in identity theft insurance. Congress subsequently included a version of our bill in an enacted appropriations bill, but limited the duration of the protection. Under current law, OPM is only required to provide identity protection coverage through fiscal year 2026. Under the bill we are introducing today, OPM would be required to provide the coverage for the remainder of the life of affected individuals.

The current coverage is inadequate, particularly considering that there is no limit to when the thieves (or those they have shared the stolen data with) may exploit the data. Therefore, there should be no limit to the duration of the coverage provided to affected individuals. This bill would give current, former and prospective federal employees and contractors who were affected both some peace of mind and protection. OPM failed to protect these people. It follows that the government must do the right thing to make up for its mistake.

I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his very special efforts for this reauthorization.

Perhaps our entire committee and subcommittee are due some self- congratulations for reaching a bipartisan agreement for a long-term reauthorization for the FAA, but the lion's share of the appreciation belongs to Chairman Shuster. I thank the chairman for his leadership, especially as he is retiring from the House, and I am grateful for the considerable efforts of Ranking Member DeFazio.

Mr. Chair, there was only one major disagreement, and that was, of course, on privatization of air traffic control operations.

This bill includes many areas that demonstrate the importance of bipartisanship. It is almost impossible to help Democrats and not Republicans, and vice versa, when it comes to matters affecting aviation.

I appreciate my own amendments in the bill addressing airplane noise, many of them embedded in the bill. And I am sure, given the complaints throughout the country, that my noise provisions, too, are bipartisan.

Mr. Chair, I ask that the House oppose the Cuellar amendment. This is a special destinations amendment for San Diego and San Antonio mainly to benefit the House Members from those districts so they can fly into Reagan National Airport nonstop rather than Dulles, which is nearby, and Baltimore-Washington, which is also very close to the District of Columbia.

The Congress has spent billions of dollars to expand Dulles, which is still very underutilized because it is a little further from D.C. than Reagan.

The limit on slots to Reagan helps relieve enormous congestion there and ensures safety of one of the Nation's most crowded and critical airfields.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the 150th anniversary of St. Peter School, a National Blue Ribbon School of Excellence on Capitol Hill.

St. Peter School was founded in 1868 with the Sisters of the Holy Cross for the purposes of taking a holistic approach in order to educate the whole child. Specifically, its mission states, ``St. Peter School is a family of learners serving the Capitol Hill parishes and community. The children are provided with an education that is founded on love of God and service to others, characterized by Catholic values and academic excellence, and dedicated to addressing each child's unique talents and abilities.''

In addition to its mission statement, St. Peter School is committed to cultivating a dedicated team of faculty and staff in one of the oldest continuously operating Catholic elementary schools in Washington, D.C. St. Peter School seeks to be a place in which faith becomes living, conscious and active through instruction and participation in prayer, worship, sacraments and service.

The school is committed to fostering an environment that ensures that students of all faiths, races and creeds are challenged through a rigorous academic program and are taught to be considerate, contributing members of a global society. It is also important to note that St. Peter School partners not only engage in charitable works with local organizations to serve those in need in Washington, D.C., but it also engages with a sister school in Haiti so that students understand what it means to be a force of good throughout the world.

I live on Capitol Hill, where St. Peter's is located, and know families who speak fondly of the school.

Therefore, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the 150th anniversary of St. Peter School.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Local Task Forces on 21st Century Policing Act, to assist localities in carrying out the recommendations of the federal Task Force on 21st Century Policing and the Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, both of which have detailed the need to strengthen relations between local communities and local law enforcement. The bill would provide grants to local governments to create local task forces on 21st century policing to bring police, representatives of the community and public officials together to identify best policing practices for local police and other ways to strengthen relations between the community and police departments. No new funds are needed. Existing funds from the Department of Justice would support local governments establishing the task forces by listing these task forces as an acceptable use of Byrne Justice Assistance Grants. Given the continuing controversy surrounding police shootings of unarmed African American men, with no solutions in sight, this bill is more timely every day.

The task forces, modeled after the federal Task Force on 21st Century Policing, would allow local communities to identify the best ways to create an effective partnership between local law enforcement and the communities they serve, while reducing crime, increasing trust and combating racial profiling The task forces could create a partnership to implement practical policing practices acceptable to all concerned.

The creation of task forces could be an important step toward easing the tensions between local law enforcement and many communities. In addition, the task forces could serve to engage local law enforcement and local stakeholders in a transparent public problem-solving process instead of the current situation that encourages parties to choose sides.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the life of Oramenta Newsome, the vice president and executive director of the Washington, D.C. Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC DC), who passed away earlier this year at age 62.

Oramenta served in the LISC DC office for nearly 25 years, leading the organization's charge to improve the overall quality of life for District of Columbia residents. In particular, she was instrumental in ensuring that public, private and philanthropic resources were leveraged to create an environment where all D.C. residents--especially the homeless, elderly, low-income and youth--would thrive.

Oramenta came to Washington in the early 1990s. She spent several years at Enterprise Community Partners and then, in 1995, took a leadership role with LISC DC as the program was seeking to expand its impact. As one of LISC's longest-serving executive directors, she was part of a group of leaders who sought innovative ways to connect investment capital to nonprofit vision at a time when there was still great skepticism about whether the formula could bring about real progress. She was also one of the country's first African American women to guide large-scale community development work.

Under Oramenta's leadership, LISC DC invested nearly $285 million in affordable housing, economic development and jobs throughout the District. Specifically, LISC DC has helped create and preserve 10,000 units of affordable housing, nine arts and cultural facilities, eight health clinics, five early childhood education centers, 11 schools and youth centers as well as nearly two dozen other businesses and community facilities that have opened their doors in underserved D.C. neighborhoods.

As the economic market in D.C. began to trend upward, Oramenta strengthened LISC DC's commitment to vulnerable communities. In 2016, Newsome told the Washington Post that improving the quality of life in neighborhoods on the brink of gentrification should be a priority. Indeed, she said she wanted to ``make sure that people with modest incomes have a fighting chance to stay and remain there and enjoy all the goodies that are on the way.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating Oramenta Newsome's humble and reverent service to D.C. and to extend deepest condolences to her beloved husband of 22 years, Wallace, and her siblings, nieces, nephews, friends and admirers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Shelley Broderick of the District of Columbia for her 20 years of outstanding service as Dean of the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law.

In August 1999, Shelley Broderick was appointed Dean of the law school, after serving as interim dean since 1998. In 2011, she was named the Joseph L. Rauh, Jr. Chair of Social Justice.

Shelly Broderick began her legal career as a clinical professor at the law school, and in 1999, she received the William Pincus Award for outstanding contributions to clinical legal education from the American Association of Law Schools. As Dean of the law school, she has received the Outstanding Dean of the Year Award from Equal Justice Works; the Servant of Justice Award from the Legal Aid Society; the Deborah L. Rhode Award from the American Association of Law Schools; and the highest award given for outstanding educational leadership at a historically black college or university from the Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund.

During her tenure as Dean, the law school has achieved the highest level of American Bar Association accreditation; forged a memorandum of understanding with the University of Havana, a first for an American law school; and has raised more than $20 million to support endowed and other student scholarships, summer public interest fellowships and clinical programs. During her tenure, more than 2,000 diverse law students have represented thousands of vulnerable D.C. residents through the school's top ranked legal clinics. She served as chair of the UDC Faculty Senate for three years, and is a founder and participant of the D.C. Consortium of Legal Services Providers. She was appointed by the D.C. Court of Appeals to serve on the District of Columbia's Access to Justice Commission and has also served on the board of D.C. Appleseed for many years. I am particularly indebted to Shelley Broderick, who I appointed to serve on my Federal Law Enforcement Nominating Commission. The Commission made recommendations to me for candidates for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, U.S. Marshals for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the D.C. Superior Court and other critical federal law enforcement positions in the District. The Commission's recommendations were of such high quality that I was able to select exemplary candidates, and submitted all of them to President Obama for nomination.

While Shelley Broderick plans to step down as Dean, she will soon rejoin the law school faculty after a sabbatical.

Therefore, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Shelley Broderick for her many years of dedicated service and outstanding contributions as Dean of the UDC David A. Clarke School of Law.

Mr. Speaker, today, marking the signing of President Lincoln's proclamation freeing slaves in the Nation's Capital, is a local holiday in the District of Columbia. Many D.C. residents worked anyway.

Activist groups in the District of Columbia, including DC Vote, brought residents here, who got more Members to sign on to our D.C. statehood bill to end taxation without representation for D.C. residents, who are number one per capita in taxes paid to support the Federal Government, but with no voting Representatives on this House floor and no Senators at all.

Even more shameful, as this poster shows, D.C.'s war casualties have often outnumbered those of the States, more than 10 States during the Vietnam war, for example.

D.C. residents are American citizens who have overpaid for their citizenship. It is time for Congress to pay back.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, D.C. begins commemorations of the emancipation of slaves in the Nation's Capital 9 months before slavery was abolished elsewhere in the United States. Yet, D.C. residents, 156 years later, still are not free. Congress can overturn local laws nowhere else except in the District, and collects taxes without representation.

The residents of the Nation's Capital have more than paid the price for their citizenship. Most are native-born American citizens. Residents have fought and died in every U.S. war, including the Revolutionary War that created the United States of America.

And D.C. residents rank number one in taxes paid to support the United States Government. We are well within our rights to ask Congress to grant the District of Columbia full emancipation by making the District the 51st State.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the 47th anniversary of the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, D.C. (GLAA) on April 26, 2018. GLAA is a valued and respected local organization long in the vanguard of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) community's struggle for equal rights.

GLAA, since its founding in April 1971, has been in the business of advocating for the District of Columbia's full and equal rights and for residents' civil rights. The Alliance defended the District's landmark D.C. Human Rights Act

of 1977 and also demanded the Act's broad enforcement. In addition, GLAA forcefully advocates for LGBTQ youth, seniors and consumers as well as for the rights of transgender people. GLAA especially focuses on transgender rights regarding equal treatment by the police and access to culturally competent healthcare.

GLAA also builds and nurtures coalitions with other constituencies. Specifically, it educates and rates candidates for D.C. offices. GLAA also works with its coalition partners and D.C. elected officials to advance its goals and to defend the District's autonomy. More recently, GLAA worked with its coalition partners to achieve the enactment of the District of Columbia Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act, which permits same-sex couples to marry in the District of Columbia.

GLAA will present its 2018 Distinguished Service Awards to recipients at a reception on April 26, 2018. The awardees include:

Check It Enterprises, formerly the Check It Gang, started as a street gang 10 years ago. The gang formed when a group of LGBTQ youth banded together as a gang in response to bullying and attacks on their LGBTQ identities. The members' oppression, traumatization and victimization produced anti-social behaviors. Check It members received no positive reinforcement or encouragement until they met a mentor, Ron Moten, five years ago. Ron never gave up on them and showed them a better way. Under his tutelage, Check It founded a clothing line and opened a business in Historic Anacostia. They raised $50,000 in remodeling costs for a building, where they make and sell clothing. The space also provides a safe haven for LGBTQ youth and young adults, as well as an area for other activities and programs. In 2016, filmmakers Diana Flor and Toby Oppenheim chronicled them in the award-winning documentary, Check It.

D.C. Councilmember Mary M. Cheh, who has represented Ward 3 since 2007, chairs the Committee on Transportation and the Environment. Councilmember Cheh authored the Conversion Therapy for Minors Prohibition Amendment Act of 2013 and the Death with Dignity Act of 2015. Additionally, her legislative advocacy includes measures to protect the environment, combat homelessness, punish bias crimes against homeless individuals and eliminate the statute of limitations for the prosecution of sexual assault. She fights alongside community advocates for LGBTQ issues, particularly those advocating for homeless LGBTQ youth. Councilmember Cheh also supports legislation to require individuals subject to temporary protective orders to surrender their guns and to prevent domestic violence through the creation of a Domestic Violence High-Risk Team, which is based upon a successful model in other jurisdictions.

Mr. Don Blanchon, the executive director of Whitman-Walker Health is the third awardee. He guides Whitman-Walker in its commitment to provide an affirming and safe health care environment to gender and sexual minorities and other marginalized communities in the District. During his 11 years of leadership, Whitman-Walker has emphasized treating the whole person, integrating the role that advocacy and legal intervention play into that care.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring the recipients of GLAA's 2018 Distinguished Service Award and in celebrating GLAA's 47 years of contributions to the LGBTQ community here in the District of Columbia.