Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues in the House to join me in recognizing Dr. Christopher ``Chris'' Arterton, the Founding Dean of the nation's first school for professional politics, The George Washington University (GWU) Graduate School of Political Management who will be leaving his full-time post at GWU, but will remain on staff serving in a research capacity.

Dr. Arterton earned his B.A. from Trinity College, his M.A. from American University and his PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Arterton is a distinguished author who has written several books on American politics and leadership. He is also a noted expert in political strategy and tactics, public opinion, and ethics and leadership in politics. His vision is to make democracy work where it is welcomed around the globe.

Prior to coming to GWU, Dr. Arterton was a professor at Yale University for 10 years, teaching in both the Political Science Department and the School of Organization and Management. Additionally, Dr. Arterton played an active role at The Institute of Politics at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, having served on five faculty study groups.

Dr. Arterton's research, his 20 years of teaching, and his considerable experience as a consultant on American public opinion make him an expert on the strategic environment of American political leaders, an area that encompasses the news media and communications technology generally and political strategy. Dr. Arterton continues to travel around the globe to teach about democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Dr. Christopher Arterton with heartfelt congratulations on a job well done for GWU and our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the 135th birthday of Nannie Helen Burroughs and in recognizing her many contributions to our nation, and especially the District of Columbia. Ms. Burroughs was born on May 2, 1879, and in 1975, Mayor Walter Washington declared May 10 ``Nannie Helen Burroughs Day'' in D.C.

Born in Orange, Virginia, Ms. Burroughs moved to Washington with her mother when she was five years old. In 1896, Ms. Burroughs graduated with honors from M Street School, now Dunbar High School. She proceeded to make immeasurable contributions to our city and country as an educator, civil rights advocate and religious leader.

Ms. Burroughs was launched onto the national scene in 1900 with her speech at the National Baptist Convention in Richmond, Virginia, ``Hindering the Women from Helping,'' about giving women a greater role in the church. Her speech led to the establishment of the Women's Convention to the National Baptist Convention and her selection as its secretary. Ms. Burroughs held this position until 1947, when she was elected president and served in that capacity until her death in 1961.

Ms. Burroughs' signature achievement was the founding of the National Training School for Negro Women and Girls in the Deanwood Area of Washington, D.C. in 1909, where she served as its principal until her death in 1961. The school would later be renamed the Nannie Helen Burroughs School and remained in operation until 2013.

Ms. Burroughs contributed to many other parts of the nation, including: establishing a Negro women's industrial club--the first of its kind--in Louisville, Kentucky in 1898; serving as keynote speaker at the first Baptist World Alliance Congress in London, England in 1905; establishing Woman's Day in the Baptist Church in 1907, while a member of the Nineteenth Street Baptist Church in D.C.; giving the commencement speech at Tuskegee Institute in 1934--the first woman to do so; serving on the listeners' advisory panel of the National Broadcasting Company; and giving a radio address to the nation and soldiers fighting abroad men abroad in 1943. She was also a primary force in establishing the Frederick Douglass House Museum. Most recently, in 2012, Mrs. Burroughs was posthumously awarded membership in the American Automobile Association--a benefit which had been denied in 1930.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Nannie Helen Burroughs for a life of committed service to our children. Her legacy continues to offer a powerful example for how we should conduct our lives and strive to teach the next generation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues in the House to join me in recognizing Dr. Dennis Johnson on his retirement from the George Washington University's (GWU) Graduate School of Political Management (GSPM). Dr. Johnson has committed more than 20 years of service to the GWU campus and will truly be missed there.

Dr. Johnson hails from a small town outside Merrillville, Indiana. In high school, he was very active in student government and politics. He earned his BA in International Relations from Carlton College and his Ph.D. in Political Science from Duke University. His academic and scholarly interests include campaigns and elections, the profession of political consulting, and the history of American public policy.

Dr. Johnson has over 20 years of teaching and leadership experience with GWU's GSPM program. Dr. Johnson has served in multiple leadership roles with the GSPM, ending his tenure as the Director of its Legislative Affairs Program, Associate Dean, and later as its Acting Executive Director. Notably, Dr. Johnson served as a Fulbright Distinguished Lecturer at Jinan University in Guangzhou, China during the 2010-2011 academic year, where he lectured and spoke to a variety of academic, professional, and business audiences throughout China. Dr. Johnson has authored numerous books on political management and has lectured on the subject around the globe. He has had a lifetime passion for politics. In addition to his academic career, Dr. Johnson earlier served as Chief of Staff to then Congressman Norman Sisisky (D-VA).

Dr. Johnson has done impressive work in advancing the cause of democracy around the globe. He epitomizes the American Dream, achieving success as a public school graduate and the first in his family to graduate from college. He earned money for his college tuition working summers in a steel mill. Coming from a small town to having had a once- in-a-lifetime opportunity to have tea with the Queen of England, Dennis has retained a sense of humility and Midwestern charm.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Dr. Dennis Johnson with sincere congratulations on a job well done for GWU and for advancing democracy around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the National Day of Reason, which occurs this year on Thursday, May 1st.

As I see nations around the world in turmoil, among people of different religious faiths, we are moved to deeper appreciation for the Framers, who bequeathed us the Constitution, which requires the separation of church and state. We could not have built a vast nation of extraordinary religious and ethnic diversity were it not for our tolerance of the world's great religions, all of which exist among us in our nation today, and of Americans who claim no religion. I hope that all Americans--religious, non-religious and secular alike--will join in observing the National Day of Reason, today, May 1, 2014. This day provides an opportunity to celebrate and recognize the positive impacts on humanity of reason, critical thought and the scientific method, which have always been acknowledged to be consistent with religious faith, and to reaffirm that the line between religion and government must remain indelible.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the National Day of Reason.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am pleased to rise in support of S. 994, the DATA Act. This is a landmark piece of bipartisan and bicameral legislation that will change the way the government operates.

I applaud the sponsor of S. 994, Senator Mark Warner, who put a lot of passion and hard work into this legislation; as did the principal sponsor here, whom you have just heard from, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, who put considerable energy into this bill over more than one session; as well as Senate Chairman Tom Carper of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee; and House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, who worked very diligently to get us to the House floor today.

The DATA Act will provide the public with information about how the government is spending money, pure and simple. This will hold agencies accountable for their spending, and it will result in a more effective government.

On April 8, 2014, the Comptroller General of the United States, Gene Dodaro, testified in support of this legislation. Here is what he said: ``I think the DATA Act is one of the biggest single things that could be done in order to provide more transparency on the costs of these program activities.''

The Comptroller General went on to say that the DATA Act would ``standardize the data''--and that is the operative word, ``standardize the data''--``so that you would be able to compare data across agencies, which you can't do right now. It would also provide more consistent information and at a lower program spending level that we found to be a big obstacle in us identifying additional savings opportunities.''

The DATA Act will require the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to establish government-wide data standards. This will improve the quality of the data that agencies make available about their spending.

Under this bill, spending data will be available through a single Web site. The bill will require that spending data be available for each agency and each program activity in a searchable, downloadable format.

The DATA Act is a bipartisan bill across both Chambers that will improve transparency and, in turn, make government work better. I urge every Member to support this legislation.

I would like, again, to express my strong support for this bill and to thank Chairman Issa for his many efforts to get it passed and through committee more than once.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of H.R. 4192, and I appreciate the initiative of the chairman, Chairman Issa, who has just spoken, who has always observed the self-government rights of the District of Columbia, and puts forward this bill in the same spirit of home rule.

This legislation will amend the Height Act of 1910, which limits the height of all building in the District of Columbia. The District is prohibited, under the Home Rule Act, from permitting any structure anywhere in the city in excess of the height limitations contained in the Height Act.

The current law permits structures above the top story of buildings, including so-called penthouses, to exceed the height limitations, but no human occupancy is permitted in mechanical penthouses, and it gives the District the authority to set the maximum height for such structures.

Currently, the structures have a height limit of 18.6 feet. The legislation will allow human occupancy of these penthouses. In addition, the legislation will mandate a 20-foot maximum height, one story, and a 1 to 1 setback for penthouses. The absolute height of any penthouse used for human occupancy will be 20 feet.

I thank Chairman Issa for examining the Height Act when he saw that it had received little congressional oversight in the century of its existence.

I supported Chairman Issa's request that the District of Columbia and the National Capital Planning Commission conduct a joint study of the Height Act because more than 100 years had passed since the heights of D.C. buildings were systematically discussed in the Halls of Congress.

The District and the NCPC came to different conclusions as to whether or how the Height Act should be amended, but agreed with respect to removing the prohibition on human occupancy of penthouses, and setting a maximum height of 20 feet, or one story, for penthouses.

The mayor and D.C. Council expressed divergent views, but I encouraged them to work together to find common ground. I am pleased that the mayor and council chairman reached an agreement with regard to penthouses, and that agreement, in essence, is before the Congress today.

Under today's bill, the city, through its local zoning process, will have the home rule ability to permit human occupancy of penthouses if it would desire. However, this bill is not a mandate directing the city to make any changes to penthouses or to its existing comprehensive plan, or local zoning laws, more generally.

Again, I would like to thank Chairman Issa for working to give the District of Columbia more authority. I also deeply appreciate the chairman's work in so many other ways, for budget autonomy, and his strong support on many occasions for home rule, which he has raised as a factor in connection with the Height Act as well.

I support the passage of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just want to thank the gentleman for speaking in favor of the bill.

I understand his concern. I do want to indicate that no exception is really being made in this bill. The height can go no higher than it can go right now, and somebody in the District of Columbia can't make an exception because the Congress of the United States controls heights still under this bill.

Of course, we have our local zoning laws in the District, so there are many, many parts of the District where you can't begin to go as high as the Height Act.

I am a third-generation Washingtonian, and I must say that I adore the residential quality of this city, which is essentially built on the notion of private homes and not large-scale apartments. The city really did not want to dislodge that, and that has not occurred here.

There may still be some disagreement among residents, but I do know that when the council, which expressed some real disquiet at any change, has finally been able to come to an agreement, that there is not enough of a change here to warrant dissent within

the city and had come to an agreement that--and when, in addition, those who have been most adamant about maintaining the Height Act, including the organization which has been the real guardian of the Height Act, the Committee of 100, says it has no objection to this compromise, I think we have finally reached a compromise of the kind that we would like to see more often occur right here in the House of Representatives.

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, I rise in support of this important legislation. I am pleased to join my colleagues and Chairman Issa today in support of H.R. 4194, the Government Reports Elimination Act, as amended.

Congress often requires reports from executive branch agencies, and these reports can be a valuable tool to scrutinize performance and assess agency goals. However, with the passage of time, reporting requirements can become outdated and unnecessary.

Congress and the executive branch recognized in the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 that improved coordination across the Federal Government benefits the taxpayer and government alike.

Pursuant to that act, the Office of Management and Budget publishes a list of plans or reports that are produced by the executive branch pursuant to congressional mandate. The act requires the administration to identify potentially outdated or duplicative plans and reports and provide views for their elimination.

In January 2013, the Office of Management and Budget produced a list that identified over 300 congressionally-mandated plans and reports as potentially outdated or duplicative. Majority and minority staffs of our committee worked together to identify specific reports that are currently produced, but should be eliminated.

H.R. 4194 would eliminate the statutory requirements to prepare reports that are produced by 18 Federal agencies. Implementing H.R. 4194 would reduce the administrative costs to these agencies by reducing the number of reports that must be prepared and printed.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing the bill reduces the costs that are subject to appropriation by about $1 million over the next 5 years. The bill contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates and would impose no costs on State, local, and tribal governments.

H.R. 4194 provides for greater efficiency for a more effective Federal Government with the elimination of duplicative or unnecessary reports.

Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I am pleased to yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, while I am waiting for my posters to arrive at the rostrum, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. Speaker, all this week I have come to the House floor for a very special purpose. I have offered only some of the reasons that the residents who live in the Nation's capital should have the same basic rights as other Americans. All other Americans have achieved these rights through statehood. We have tried to break down the elements of statehood into separate bills, but we have not been able to get those elements recognized by the Congress of the United States either.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am making use of an important day coming up next week when Congress will be out of session. April 16 is commemorated in the District of Columbia because it is the day 152 years ago when Abraham Lincoln freed those slaves who happened to live in the Nation's capital 9 months before the national Emancipation Proclamation. This week, I have used this upcoming occasion to offer a series of remarks not only, of course, because of this historic occasion in our city but because of the meaning this occasion has to the residents of the Nation's Capital here and now, right this moment, not 152 years ago.

Unlike 1862 when African Americans who happened to live in the Nation's Capital were deprived of freedom, in 2014, every American citizen of every background, of every race, of every color, of every religion, of every ethnic origin, of every sex is equally deprived of equal rights with other Americans.

Other Americans, to have obtain full rights, need only be taxpaying citizens who serve in the Nation's wars. The people I represent have served in the Nation's wars since our very first war, the war that created the United States of America. And from the moment the Congress imposed Federal income taxes on the people of the United States, the people I represent have paid those taxes to support their government without a voting Member in this Congress, this House of Representatives, and with no voting Members in the Senate of the United States.

I do have the vote in committee, but when matters affecting my district, in

particular, or matters affecting the United States in which my jurisdiction, like other Americans, is implicated, like whether to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, where our residents have served, I have no vote on this floor. Mind you, on this floor, Congress votes on the budget raised, the local budget raised in my city, not one penny of which has been contributed by this Congress.

Yet nothing is more important to Americans than the ability to pass your own local laws, to raise your own local money and say how it is to be spent without interference from the national government.

No others who pay taxes, Federal income taxes--obviously, we pay local taxes--but no others who pay Federal income taxes and who have served in our armed forces are denied their basic rights in our country. This, of course, is an embarrassment to the country itself, but today it is far more serious. It is a violation of international law and a treaty that we have signed.

Last month, the U.N. Human Rights Committee issued its report for 2014. Its report called our country to account on the denial of congressional voting rights in the National Legislature for the residents of the District of Columbia. In other words, the United States Government is in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That is the treaty that our country signed in 1992. The U.N. report recommended: ``Provide full voting rights for the residents of Washington, D.C.''

I would venture to say that you will not find an American citizen who does not agree that, before the Congress can impose any burden on you, you ought to have the right to raise your hand ``yea'' or ``nay.''

Moreover, this is not the first time that the United Nations has called our country to account. Earlier, in 2006, the Human Rights Committee wrote:

``The committee having taken note of the responses provided

by the delegation''--

That means the United States delegation to the U.N.--

heard their responses and said: ``. . . remains concerned

that the residents of the District of Columbia do not enjoy

full representation in Congress, a restriction that does not

seem to be compatible with article XXV of the covenant.''

And then it cited articles II, XXV, and XXVI.

Article II, and I won't quote from the entire article, says:

``Adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to

give effect to the rights recognized in the present

covenant.''

That covenant is a treaty, a treaty we signed in 1992, to which we are, by human rights and international law, bound.

Article XXV says that that right includes: ``the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs directly or through freely chosen representatives.''

In our country, we do not have direct democracy. We govern through freely chosen representatives who get to vote on this floor. The residents of the District of Columbia get to choose me, but I do not get to vote even on matters affecting their local concerns.

Article XXV also says: ``to have access on general terms of equality to public service in this country.''

The residents have access to public service. I serve as a Member of Congress, but they do not have that right in terms of ``equality'' because I cannot vote once I become the Member chosen to exercise that service.

Moreover, notably, when my party was in power, using House rules, the District was given the right to vote on behalf of the residents of the District of Columbia on matters in the so-called Committee of the Whole. Imagine, after getting a right that is not the full right to vote on most matters in this Chamber, but when my Republican colleagues came to power, they took even that right, the right to vote in the Committee of the Whole, from the people of the District of Columbia. Is that, my friends, ``equality,'' or is it discrimination against the residents of the Nation's capital?

The report refers also to article XXVI. That is worth quoting:

``All persons are equal before the law and are entitled

without any discrimination through the equal protection of

the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any

discrimination and guarantee all persons equal and effective

protection against discrimination on any ground . . .''

Then they name some such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth--and here is the one that applies to District of Columbia residents--or other status.

What is the other status of the residents of the District of Columbia? Their status is that they reside in their Nation's capital, the only Nation in the world that denies the residents of their capital the same rights that other residents in their country enjoy.

Nor is there any question that there are more than enough American citizens here to be granted statehood or at least equality.

Two States of the Union that have two Senators and one Representative have fewer residents than the District of Columbia. Here is one, the lowest population in the country, Wyoming. Next is Vermont. And finally, with considerably more residents, almost 650,000, the District of Columbia.

We are soon going to overtake a number of other States. The District is growing, so much that there has been an attempt to raise the so- called Height Act, which limits how high buildings can be, because of the need to expand housing and office space. That attempt was turned back because residents were more concerned with the low-scale residential quality and attractiveness of their city.

We are talking, Mr. Speaker, about 650,000 people, about the size of an average congressional district. Look to this chart about how rapidly the District is growing, on an average, more than 2 percent a year for more than 10 years now. In the last couple of years, it has grown by almost 2\1/2\ percent. Just compare that with growth in the United States itself. The United States population grew not by 1 percent or 2 percent, but by 0.7 percent in the last couple of years.

We live in one of the most rapidly growing regions in the country. This is called the national capital region. Maryland and Virginia are the closest States. And yet the District, is growing more than 2 percent compared to Virginia, which grew only 0.9 percent, and Maryland, which grew only 0.7 percent.

Mr. Speaker, during my remarks this week on the floor, this week, selected the two most basic obligations of Americans who have won statehood to test whether the District is being denied its rights. I began with taxes because I think people fret most about paying taxes-- and almost all of us have to pay taxes--not because taxes are more important.

Who thinks taxes are more important, of course, is the Republican majority. They are obsessed with taxes. So you would think that they would want to do something about people who pay taxes but don't have representation. Taxes is about the only issue that the Republican majority cares about. But by ``taxes,'' they mean cutting taxes. Yet they raise taxes by imposing taxes without representation on the people of the District of Columbia. They are happy to take more than $3 billion annually out of the pockets of D.C. citizens with no vote on whether those taxes should be raised or lowered.

But, the most surprising fact about taxes in our country is who, which individuals, pay the most. Well, if I were to ask our citizens, to guess, they probably wouldn't say District of Columbia residents. Let me clarify. Of the residents of the 50 States, the residents of the District of Columbia pay more Federal taxes per person than the residents of any of the 50 States.

This chart shows how it goes from the highest to the lowest. The highest in the United States at almost $12,000 per person in Federal taxes annually, resident by resident, live in the District of Columbia. The lowest per capita, per person, live in the State of Mississippi.

So imagine the rage--nobody wants to pay taxes--imagine the rage when you pay more taxes than anybody else and still don't have the vote on the House floor.

Now, I haven't put all of the States on this poster because they could not be seen, but you see it goes from $12,000--or almost $12,000--down to as little as $4,000.

The first 10 States, the top 10 States, end with California. Some of them, you might recognize if you had to guess

them. The second is Connecticut. The third is New Jersey. The 10th is California at about $8,000 per person. Compare that to our almost $12,000 per person. Understand that this doesn't have to do with the size of the State's population. It has to do with the amount of taxes per person, and regardless of population size, District residents pay more.

I indicated that Vermont and Wyoming were States we exceeded in population. Wyoming residents pay something close to $8,000 per person compared to our $12,000--or almost $12,000; and Vermont, also a State with fewer residents than in the District of Columbia, pays about half, something over $6,000, compared to our almost $12,000 per person in taxes. Or just randomly pick out your State. Bear in mind, we are comparing them with D.C.'s almost $12,000 per person in Federal taxes that are paying to support the Government of the United States.

Nebraska is half of that, about $6,400. Take two others that are close to one another in the amounts they pay, each about $6,000-- Arizona and Indiana--compared to D.C.'s $12,000.

There is Idaho. To support the Federal Government, Idaho, which pays $5,440. D.C. pays something over twice what they pay.

When you get to those which pay the least--let's take the bottom two States, Louisiana at $4,500 and Mississippi at $4,200--you will see D.C. getting to paying three times what these States pay--States which have Representatives and two Senators.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, of all of the obligations, perhaps the most poignant is service in the Armed Forces. For the people I represent, there has been service in the Armed Forces ever since there has been a United States of America and even before, when we were fighting in a Revolution to create the United States of America, but that service has often been disproportionate to the number of residents.

Looking to the major wars of the 20th century, you get an idea of what I mean. In World War I, 635 casualties, but that was more than three States. In World War II, now, we are getting to more in casualties than four States.

By the time we got to the Korean war, the District had more casualties than in eight States. So we have gone from three to four, to Korea with eight and, finally, to Vietnam with more casualties than in 10 States.

The District even sometimes has had to fight to get equal respect for D.C. members of our Armed Forces.

A mother wrote me when she recently went to the graduation of her son from boot camp at Naval Station Great Lakes. The family was there, glowing with honor and pride, for a son who had passed up going to college in order to serve in the United States Navy, so passionate was this kid about service.

When each graduate stepped forward, the flag of the State was raised. When Seaman Jonathan Rucker stepped forward, no State flag was raised.

That, my friends, was the last straw. I was immediately in touch with the White House and with the Armed Services Committees, particularly after veterans in the District of Columbia came forward with more particularly heartbreaking stories.

For example, among the most serious were some veterans who spoke of no D.C. flag being displayed at ``welcome home'' ceremonies, even though the flags of other States were raised. I don't think anybody meant any disrespect to our residents serving in the Armed Forces.

I just believe that, when you pay taxes without representation--when you don't have anybody in the Senate who can take care of you and when you have only a nonvoting Representative in the House, who votes in committee, but not on this floor, it is easy to be disregarded in many ways.

I am very grateful to Senator Levin and the Senate Armed Services Committee and to this House and its Armed Services Committee for rectifying this serious slight to our residents, the residents who have given the most to their country.

Mr. Speaker, I read an honor roll, picking out just a few of the very distinguished Washingtonians who have served in the Armed Forces because some of them stand out in the history of our country.

This was a city which had racial segregation imposed on it by the Congress of the United States until the 1960s, even though, until that time, the majority of the population of the District of Columbia was not African American, but was White; yet even during that period--that period of segregation when African Americans were entering the armed services from every part of the country, the first African American Army general was born in this city, the first African American Air Force general born in this city, the first African American Naval Academy graduate born in this city, the first African American Air Force Academy graduate born in this city, and this roster continues to this very day.

The first Deputy Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard is serving as I speak, Vice Admiral Manson Brown, who was born in this city; and the first African American female aviator of the D.C. National Guard, First Lt. Demetria Elosie--60, is a Washingtonian.

Mr. Speaker, we know that statehood is the only way Americans have gotten full and equal rights. That, of course, is why we seek statehood, but don't think we haven't tried to get our rights in every single way we could. We also have tried piece by piece.

There are pending bills before the House and the Senate now. Some contain important elements of statehood--for example budget autonomy-- that would allow our budget to go into effect, a local budget after all, once it is passed by the local legislature, the D.C. Council.

Because this Congress insists that we bring our local budget to this national body, which does not fund the District, our city was almost shut down this past year when the Congress shut down the Federal Government for 16 days.

That was a subject of great anguish in the District of Columbia because we were no part of that fight. We have got a balanced budget, and indeed a surplus, but because we had to bring our budget here and because Congress had not passed a single appropriation, we got shut down, too--or almost.

The mayor kept the city open, and as we were running out of contingent funds, the Republican majority relented and allowed the Federal Government to open, and therefore, the District did not have to close down.

I am pleased that the administration, President Obama, has put into his budget language that would grant the District control over its own budget, allowing the local budget to go into effect as soon as the D.C. City Council passes the local budget. He put that same provision in his budget last year, and the Senate appropriators passed it.

I thought then that D.C. budget autonomy would become law with the budget deal, but when the budget deal came out, it left out the section that would have given the residents of the District of Columbia control over the money they, themselves, and nobody else raises.

I am pleased to say that there are Members of this House on both sides of the aisle who recognize that elementary fairness lies in budget autonomy. I thank Majority Leader Eric Cantor for his support for budget autonomy. He is the second in leadership, a Republican leader of this House.

I thank Chairman Darrell Issa, who is the chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over matters affecting the District of Columbia, in that he has pressed for budget autonomy even as he pressed to keep the District open when the city was almost shut down.

The District also does not have complete control over its local laws. What D.C. has is a costly requirement that delays local bills for months before they can become effective, because they have to come to the Congress, although the Congress never uses this procedure called a ``layover procedure'' to overturn city laws but finds other means to do so, yet continues to impose the layover requirement of bringing every local law here to the Congress before it becomes effective.

I appreciate that Senator Mark Begich, who chairs the subcommittee, and Chairman Tom Carper, who chairs the full committee with jurisdiction over matters affecting the District of Columbia in the Senate, have introduced bills that would give the District budget and legislative autonomy.

Mr. Speaker, when I came to the House in the early nineties, I was able to get almost two-thirds of the Democrats to vote for statehood for the District of Columbia. It was not enough

but it does show you that there were Members then and I believe people now who recognize the unfairness of the unequal status of D.C. residents I have discussed today and earlier this week.

It became more difficult to make progress as the years went by, because most of my service in the Congress has been in the minority. Yet we are making progress.

We were able to get the first statue representing the District of Columbia in the Capitol last year. The reason that is important is that a statue, like those of the states, was denied us because we are not yet a State. We have now been able to break through that with what is surely a symbol of statehood.

And at the ceremony with majority and minority leadership, unveiling the Douglass statue, Majority Leader Reid used the occasion, with great enthusiasm, to indicate that he was cosponsoring the D.C. statehood bill.

The reason that is important, Mr. Speaker, is that the Majority Leader, like the Speaker of this House, cosponsors very few bills. It says something about the importance of correcting unfairness to the District of Columbia that Majority Leader Reid not only has become a cosponsor of our D.C. statehood bill, one of 17 Senators, but that he did so with great enthusiasm and in a prominent public announcement.

I am pleased that virtually the entire Democratic Senate leadership has sponsored our statehood bill.

Mr. Speaker, Congress continues to deny the American citizens who live in its Nation's Capital their most basic rights. Today we have discussed how that is a violation of every American principle, and that it is even a violation of international law.

Congress has failed to give D.C. residents even some of the rights associated with statehood, rights that they could give today or tomorrow even if they were not prepared to grant us statehood, the right to control our own local funds, funds we raise, funds we then turn over, at a cost of $12,000 per person, to support the government of the United States.

Congress tyrannically overturns locally passed laws and keeps our local laws from going into existence until they have had an opportunity to look at them, except they don't. They just leave this costly, delay- ridden requirement in place.

Congress continues to command our taxes to support the national government at a higher per capita rate than the rate paid by any other Americans while denying D.C. residents voting representation when Congress passes laws concerning those taxes or concerning any other matter affecting our country.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in the name of those who have died in the Nation's wars; in the name of the living veterans of our wars who are among the 650,000 residents of the District of Columbia today; in the name of D.C. residents who pay $12,000 per person, the highest per capita federal taxes in the country, to support the United States of America; in the name of millions ever since 1801, when the District of Columbia became the Capital, who have died in our wars without seeing the benefits of voting representation in the House and Senate and without the full and equal rights of other Americans who died alongside them, I ask this House to grant the residents of their Nation's Capital statehood. And if you fall short of statehood, at the very least, our residents are entitled to equal representation and to equal recognition, to equality under law with every other American citizen.

Mr. Speaker, I began this series of remarks yesterday as the District prepares for Emancipation Day on April 16, when Lincoln freed the slaves in the District of Columbia before the national Emancipation Proclamation.

I began with the status of all the citizens of the District of Columbia today with ``Taxation Without Representation,'' the slogan the Founders of our Nation and the Framers of our Constitution used to start the revolution that created the United States of America itself. With those taxes should come statehood.

But if there is any issue with greater command than taxation without representation for statehood for the District of Columbia, it is surely fighting and dying for one's country without representation, securing the vote for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, only to come home with no vote of your own in the Congress that sent you to war, or not coming home at all.

D.C. residents fought and died in the war that created the United States of America itself, and have served in every war since, often suffering casualties well beyond those of fellow Americans, casualties that mounted in each of the major wars of the 20th century: World War I, more casualties than three States; World War II, more casualties than four States; the Korean war, by then more casualties than eight States; and the Vietnam war, more casualties than 10 States of the Union.

Not only have thousands fought and died without the vote, many served with unusual distinction and many in the segregated Armed Forces, although African Americans in the District were outnumbered by Whites until recent years. Yet the District produced the first African American Army general, Benjamin O. Davis; the first African American Air Force general, Benjamin O. Davis, Jr., a graduate of West Point and commander of the Tuskegee Airmen; Wesley Davis, the first African American Naval Academy graduate; Charles Vernon Bush, the first African American Air Force Academy graduate, and the roster continues today-- today the first Deputy Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, Admiral Manson Brown, and the first female African American aviator, D.C. National Guard First Lieutenant Demetria Elosiebo.

Our country continues to deny District of Columbia citizens their basic rights at home.

Today, we ask that Congress draw the line on service in the Armed Forces. In the name of those who have fought or died in the Nation's wars, grant the citizens of the District of Columbia equal rights with other Americans. Grant the District of Columbia statehood in the Union.

Mr. Speaker, April 16 marks Emancipation Day in the District of Columbia, when the slaves who lived in the District of Columbia were emancipated.

I come to the floor this week to discuss a different kind of emancipation. Today, I begin, as the Nation began, with taxes without representation. If I were to ask you who pays the highest taxes per capita in the United States of America, who would you say? What jurisdiction would you say? New York? Connecticut? Arizona? Texas?

It would be the citizens of the Nation's Capital who support the Nation without representation in the Congress of the United States, the 650,000 citizens of the Nation's Capital. That is why you see D.C. license plates that say, ``Taxation Without Representation.'' That was not the idea of the D.C. government. It was a citizen who came forward to suggest that this should be what was on our license plates.

So, April 16--we in the District commemorate Emancipation Day every year because we have the distinction of being the first jurisdiction in the United States where the slaves were emancipated 9 months before they were emancipated elsewhere. The irony is, we are now the last jurisdiction where citizens of every background do not enjoy equal rights. All other Americans have at least one voting Representative and two Senators. District of Columbia citizens have no vote on this House floor and no Senators.

All other Americans govern themselves without interference from the Congress. The District of Columbia must abide the nullification of local laws if the Congress sees fit. All other Americans enjoy total control of their own taxpayer funds. The District budget, approved by and raised by District officials, must be approved in this House and in the Senate by people who had nothing to do with raising those funds.

All other Americans pass any constitutional local law they see fit. All local laws of the District of Columbia must lay over here in the House to see whether somebody wants to pop up and overturn them, even if they are constitutional.

What is the difference between the people I represent and the people my colleagues represent? We do not have statehood rights, and that is what any citizen who pays taxes and serves in the armed services for the Nation deserves. We seek statehood, the only way to achieve what we have sought and still seek: budget autonomy, legislative autonomy, freedom from interference into our lives by the Congress of the United States.

The Nation's first principle, the principle that gave rise to revolution, is taxation without representation. How would you feel if the highest per capita taxes were paid by your citizens and they didn't have the same rights as every other citizen?

District residents pay almost $12,000 per capita; the lowest are paid, and I point them out only because they are the lowest, by Mississippi, and their taxes are the lowest. I don't go through all the States because there is not room. But what is your State? New York? $8,737 per person. Compare that to our almost $12,000 per D.C. resident, and New York is a large State. California ranks 10th, $8,162 per capita compared to our $12,000 per capita, my friends, per citizen.

In our country when England decided to impose taxation without representation, the colonies decided they would be colonies no more. They passed a resolution saying, ``No taxes ever have been or can be constitutionally imposed on them'' by their respective legislatures.

Look at this graph; it speaks for itself, it speaks for the residents of the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a resources study to determine the suitability and feasibility of entering into public-private partnerships to operate federally owned golf courses in the District of Columbia. The three golf courses--Langston Golf Course, Rock Creek Golf Course and East Potomac Golf Course--are owned by the National Park Service (NPS). The courses have long been in desperate need of capital investment to reverse decades of deterioration and to maintain and preserve their historic features. From the time Congress created the first of the courses in the 1920s, they have been underfunded. The major reason is that NPS has continued to operate the courses under concession contracts even though concession contracts do not allow for the significant annual capital improvements necessary for golf courses. The concessions approach to operating golf courses has led to an inevitable declining state of repair.

East Potomac Golf Course was built in 1920 and included three courses that accommodated all levels of play, with an 18-hole course and two 9- hole courses. East Potomac was initially segregated, with African Americans permitted to play only on Mondays. The course was desegregated in 1941 by the then-Secretary of the Interior, Harold Ickes, following pressure from an African-American women's golf club, the Wake Robin Golf Club. However, Langston Golf Course opened in 1939 as a segregated course for African-Americans, and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Langston was the home course for the Royal Golf Club and the Wake Robin Golf Club, the Nation's first clubs for African American men and women golfers, respectively. Langston, named for John Mercer Langston, the first African-American elected to Congress from Virginia in 1888, was originally a 9-hole course. Langston's expansion to an 18-hole course began in 1955, but was not completed until the mid-1980s. Rock Creek Golf Course opened in 1923 as a 9-hole course and an additional nine holes were added to it in 1926. None of the courses have been modernized, all three have fallen into disrepair, and all lack the amenities necessary to serve the public today.

My bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of NPS, to conduct a special resources study to determine the suitability and feasibility of entering into public-private partnerships with a non-Federal entity or entities to operate the courses. The study would assume that one of the three golf courses will be a world-class, tournament-quality public course, with playing fees commensurate with such courses. The other two courses would be public courses of substantially similar quality to top-ranked courses owned by cities, towns, counties and states. The playing fees for these other two courses would remain the same as they are on the date of enactment of the bill, indexed annually to the Consumer Price Index. The study would also determine which course would be best suitable as the world- class, tournament-quality public course.

The three courses together constitute a magnificent but underutilized public asset that could be renovated and modernized, facilitating affordable recreation, attracting significantly more golfers and generating revenue to maintain the courses. Unlike other NPS facilities, golf courses require significant, continuing capital investment for maintenance. The current fees collected from patrons at the courses, which are established in the concessions contracts, must remain affordable and therefore do not generate sufficient revenue for NPS or the concessioners to properly maintain the courses.

Because the public golf courses in the Nation's capital are in such poor condition and are in need of a different and better means of

operating and funding, I urge support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Susan Finn Brita for her more than 29 years of dedicated public service, in both the legislative and executive branches. Susan was my closest committee advisor when I came to the House in 1991 and remained invaluable counsel until she became General Services Administration (GSA) Deputy Administrator in 2010.

Susan began her career in public service as Chief of Staff to then GSA Administrator Terence Golden in 1985, after earning her Master's degree in Public Administration from George Washington University. In 1992, Susan was recruited to become Staff Director for the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, a position she held for 15 years. In 2010, Susan was recruited by the Obama administration to become GSA Deputy Administrator.

During her 29 years of federal service, Ms. Brita has mastered all phases of federal property management, including asset acquisition through construction, leasing, purchase, and long-term financing, repair and alterations, and surplus property disposal. She also has played a key role in the implementation of federal energy policy in federal buildings, including courthouses, as well as in the implementation of policies directed at building sustainability. Ms. Brita was heavily involved in evaluating and making recommendations to improve GSA's nationwide leasing program, reforming the GSA Courthouse Construction Program, and giving GSA the authority to redevelop and sell underutilized federal property. In addition she played pivotal roles in many projects under the jurisdiction of GSA, including the redevelopment of the Old Post Office Building, the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center, the Hotel Monaco, the Southeast Federal Center, and the West Campus of St. Elizabeths.

On March 31, 2014, Susan Brita retired from the GSA. Susan's advice and counsel have been indispensable to me, to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the Congress in helping to make GSA a true partner with the private sector to construct and redevelop property across the nation, while containing cost to federal taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Susan Finn Brita for a life of committed service to the people of the United States and the federal government, and in congratulating her on her extraordinary achievements as she retires from the administration and federal service.

Mr. Speaker, today, in this month in which Pierre L'Enfant was hired to design the plan for the District for Columbia in 1791, I introduce a bill to direct the Joint Committee on the Library to accept a statue depicting Pierre L'Enfant from the District of Columbia and to provide for the permanent display of the statue in the United States Capitol.

Pierre L'Enfant was born in France in 1754. He was an engineer and an architect, and he traveled to the United States to serve with the United States in the Revolutionary War. In March 1791, L'Enfant was hired to develop the design for the District of Columbia. L'Enfant's design for the city was so remarkable that it remains and is cherished today in the nation's capital and throughout this country. L'Enfant's design envisioned a federal and residential city with diagonal streets propelling from Congress and the President's home, beautiful boulevards on local streets and neighborhoods, and open spaces for monuments, memorials and historical structures, all of which largely

remain intact, protected as a historical treasure.

In 2006, the residents of the District of Columbia chose L'Enfant as one of the top ten people that have given distinguishable service to the District of Columbia and the selection committee created by the D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities chose L'Enfant as the second statute from D.C. to be placed in the United States Capitol. The District's first choice for a statute was Frederick Douglass, and I am pleased that the Douglass statue now sits in Emancipation Hall. Because the United States Capitol does not currently appropriately recognize the contributions of Pierre L'Enfant and because D.C. residents and stakeholders chose L'Enfant as a distinguishable Washingtonian, this bill would require the Joint Committee on the Library to place the Pierre L'Enfant statute in the United States Capitol.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce the Protecting Airline Passengers from Sexual Assaults Act, a bill to require the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to collect and maintain data on the number of sexual assaults that occur on commercial airplanes. At the moment, there are no real-time statistics or documentation. As a result, we cannot gain either the necessary information to prosecute these crimes or the insights to help eliminate them and improve complicated onboard sexual assault investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Passengers expect that after going through extensive security at airports that they will be safe aboard their flights, but a recent surge in reports of sexual assaults occurring on planes suggests otherwise. Those who staff flights and who may witness these crimes should have guidance as to how to proceed. Law enforcement and the flying public deserve to have access to data on sexual assaults that occur on planes so that we can work towards preventing these devastating crimes.

In recent years, there has been an increase in reports of sexual assaults on flights in the United States. Oftentimes, the survivors of these crimes were asleep during part of the assault, but were so afraid and shocked that they did not call for help. In these cases, the dynamics of surviving a sexual assault are amplified. In order for the FAA and law enforcement to better gauge the extent of these horrendous crimes that have taken place on aircraft and to work towards prevention, data on the number of sexual assaults needs to be collected and shared with the public.

My bill would require the FAA to establish a program to collect and maintain data on the number of sexual assaults that occur on commercial flights, including international flights and domestic flights that land or take off in the United States. Even more importantly, my bill would require the FAA to make this data available to the public on its website.

Sexual assaults on airplanes are criminal acts that elude police and prosecutors more than many other crimes due to a number of factors, including fear on the part of the survivor, lack of witnesses, and a lack of education on how to respond to such acts. We need to know where the source of the surge is. This data is also very important because the public deserves to know that such incidents have happened.

I urge support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and congratulating the Howard University Pharmacy Alumni Association on 55 years of service to the Howard University College of Pharmacy and to the profession of pharmacy.

Pharmacy education is an essential part of the core curriculum at Howard University. Since its establishment, Howard University has consistently educated diverse, culturally competent and thoughtful pharmacists. In fact, one of Howard University's earliest graduates earned a Bachelor of Sciences in Pharmacy, and started the legacy of service and excellence that has defined subsequent generations of graduates.

The College of Pharmacy's graduates work tirelessly to address existing and emerging health care concerns, including health care disparities along racial and economic lines. However, their call to serve extends well beyond the clinical and beyond the confines of their profession. For 55 years, the Pharmacy Alumni Association has served as one of the most effective advocates for the school and its students. Through its efforts, countless students have received scholarships and mentoring that enabled and empowered them to join this noble profession.

I ask the House to join me in celebrating the Pharmacy Alumni Association's 55th anniversary, and I wish the Howard University Pharmacy Alumni Association many more years of success as they continue to provide financial and networking opportunities to the next generation of pharmacists.