Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the No Fencing at the United States Capitol Complex Act, which would prohibit the installation of permanent fencing at the United States Capitol complex. Senator Chris Van Hollen is introducing this bill in the Senate. Permanent fencing at the Capitol complex would send an un-American message to the Nation and the world by transforming our democracy from one that is accessible, transparent, and of the people, to one that is closed off, secretive, and fearful of its own citizens. It would tell the world that the most powerful Nation must rely on crude barriers for safety instead of state-of-the-art intelligence and security protocols. The Capitol complex has welcomed First Amendment demonstrations for centuries without becoming a fortress. The openness of the Capitol complex and our democracy is a strength, not a weakness that needs to be rooted out. Furthermore, the Capitol complex does not exist in a vacuum. It is immediately surrounded by residential neighborhoods and local businesses. Permanent fencing would cause serious damage to the fabric of these communities. After the January 6th insurrection, the Capitol complex became an untraversable fortress surrounded by frightening fences capped with barbed wire typical of authoritarian regimes. These residents and businesses were more than understanding as their neighborhoods turned into militarized zones. They waited patiently as officers checked their identification on their walks home or took alternative routes when they found blocked streets. Permanent fencing would limit their ability, as well as the general public's ability, to enjoy the public spaces that define our Nation's capital. The distance between government and the people has grown, with trust in government at historic lows. We should not increase that distance by placing intimidating barriers between public servants and the people they serve, especially when such barriers are unnecessary. Security is not only about reducing risk. It is also about safeguarding the freedoms and values that anchor our country, not only for ourselves but for future generations Public property should be open to the public. Americans should not have to peer at their democracy from behind fences. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill to expand eligibility for the Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance Program, commonly referred to as Chapter 35 benefits, to dependent parents of servicemembers. The idea for this bill came from one of my constituents. Currently, the spouses and children of servicemembers who die or become disabled are eligible for Chapter 35 benefits. However, dependent parents of servicemembers are not eligible. Parents of servicemembers often fill the role of caregiver for the children of servicemembers while they are overseas. Such time commitments make it challenging for these parents to pursue post- secondary education, making it difficult for them to enter the workforce if their child is killed or becomes disabled in service of their country. This bill would expand the definition of ``eligible person'' in Chapter 35 to include dependent parents of servicemembers. Granting dependent parents of servicemembers access to Chapter 35 benefits will allow them to gain the necessary skills to enter the workforce and support themselves and other surviving family members. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, I introduced the Protecting Independent Contractors from Discrimination Act, which would extend to independent contractors the same federal antidiscrimination protections provided to employees. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, approximately seven percent of workers are independent contractors. This bill would extend the following antidiscrimination laws, which apply to employees, to independent contractors: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. Every worker should be protected from discrimination.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Reducing the Effects of the Cyberattack on OPM Victims Enduring Response and Protecting Identifiable Information Act, or the RECOVER PII Act. This bill would require the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to make permanent the free identity protection coverage that Congress required OPM to provide to individuals whose Social Security numbers were potentially compromised during the OPM data breaches. This bill would also allow federal agencies to provide privacy-enhancing services to their employees and contractors. Senator Mark Warner is sponsoring the companion bill. 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. After OPM announced that it would offer identity protection coverage of limited duration and value to affected individuals, I introduced a bill to provide such individuals lifetime identity protection coverage and at least $5 million in identity theft insurance. Congress subsequently passed a version of that bill as part of an appropriations bill, but limited the duration of the protection. Under current law, OPM is required to provide identity protection coverage only through fiscal year 2026. Under the bill Senator Warner and I are introducing today, OPM would be required to provide lifetime coverage. The current coverage duration is inadequate, given that there is no limit to when the stolen data might be exploited. Therefore, there should be no limit on the duration of the coverage. This bill would also authorize federal agencies to provide services to federal employees and contractors to mitigate privacy risks arising from data processing. These services would help federal employees and contractors protect their personal information. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Promoting National Service and Reducing Unemployment Act to address one of the greatest workforce tragedies--our unemployed young people--by adding 500,000 new members to AmeriCorps. Youth unemployment is harming our young people and costing our country billions of dollars each year in lost productivity and tax revenue, among other costs. Although the total unemployment rate has reached a relative low (4.2 percent), the youth unemployment rate is 10.8 percent. These young people have not had a fair chance to use the high school or college education we strongly urged them to obtain. By adding 500,000 new members to AmeriCorps, this bill would allow unemployed youth to earn a stipend, obtain work experience, and provide valuable public service. AmeriCorps participants receive a living allowance and are also eligible for an education award equal to the value of a Pell Grant, school-loan forbearance, health care benefits, and childcare assistance. This bill would also establish that the minimum wage for any AmeriCorps State and National member is 200 percent of the federal poverty line and would not allow for a decrease in that amount, as is allowed under current law. AmeriCorps members serve their country and gain skills, but we should increase the minimum wage for everyone, including national service members. For some time, it has been clear that policies to address the most stubborn forms of unemployment need to be targeted in order to be effective. Without significant targeting, many young people will continue to face their first years as adults without jobs and with no way to acquire necessary work experience. Young people deserve a better start in life as adults. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Congress Leads by Example Act of 2026, which would apply many of the laws that protect employees in the private sector and the executive branch to the legislative branch. Congress should abide by the laws it imposes on others. In 1995, Congress passed the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA), which applied 13 existing civil rights, labor and workplace safety and health laws to the legislative branch. In 2018, after reports of sexual harassment in Congress and in light of the #MeToo movement, Congress passed the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act (Reform Act), which changed the name of the Office of Compliance to the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR), revised the process to resolve workplace claims and extended CAA protections to unpaid staff, interns, and fellows. It also made Members of Congress personally liable for their own violations of workplace harassment and retaliation laws. The CAA and the Reform Act were important steps in making the legislative branch accountable for its employment practices, but they did not finish the job. As noted, the CAA brought the legislative branch under 13 existing civil rights, labor, and workplace safety and health laws, but it omitted important substantive and procedural protections. OCWR has identified additional federal workplace laws and procedures that should apply to the legislative branch. This bill considers OCWR's recommendations. This bill would provide general whistleblower protections and make additional Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) anti-retaliation provisions applicable to the legislative branch. This bill would provide subpoena authority to OCWR to conduct inspections and investigations into OSHA violations. It also would provide extended paid parental bereavement leave to legislative branch employees. This bill would further the CAA's goal of preventing workplace discrimination in the legislative branch by prohibiting the legislative branch from making adverse employment decisions based on an employee's wage garnishment or involvement in bankruptcy proceedings pursuant to the Consumer Credit Protection Act or Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code. Finally, this bill would bolster the CAA's recordkeeping requirements. It would apply to the legislative branch the obligation to maintain accurate records of safety information and employee injuries, as otherwise required by OSHA, as well as employee records necessary to administer anti-discrimination laws. This bill would help restore the public's trust in Congress by redoubling our efforts to exercise leadership by example. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. NORTON

Mr. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call No. 258, I mistakenly voted No when I intended to vote Aye.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Federal Bureau of Prisons Voting Assistance Act of 2026. Congresswoman Chellie Pingree is the co-lead. This bill would require the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to provide individuals in BOP prisons from jurisdictions that allow such individuals to vote, like the District of Columbia and Maine, information on how to register to vote and request an absentee ballot. BOP would be required to provide each BOP prison information on the criteria for voter registration, instructions on voter registration, voter registration forms and prepaid envelopes for voter registration forms, if provided by the state generally. Each BOP prison would be required to post the information and to give it to each individual eligible to vote. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the No New Fencing at the White House Act, which would prohibit the installation of new permanent fencing at the White House complex, including Lafayette Square and the Ellipse. This bill would help ensure that one of our Nation's most important public spaces remains open and accessible to the public. The Trump administration has proposed installing permanent fencing at the ends of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House and around Lafayette Square. While I understand the importance of protecting the White House, which is already surrounded by a 13-foot-high fence, we can and must maintain our commitment to security without sacrificing public access by using the least restrictive means necessary to address security. The White House complex has long served as a place where Americans can peacefully assemble. The openness of areas around the White House is a strength of our democracy, not a security weakness that needs to be fenced off. More fencing around this public space would send the wrong message to the Nation and the world by continuing to transform our democracy from one that is accessible and of the people to one that is exclusive and fearful of its own citizens. Fencing is an incredibly imprecise security tool. It is more likely to keep out District of Columbia residents, tourists, and peaceful demonstrators than those determined to do harm. The areas around the White House complex are used every day by D.C. residents and tourists from across the country and around the world. The distance between government and the people has grown, with trust in government at an all-time low. We should not increase that distance by placing intimidating barriers between public servants and the people they serve, especially when such barriers are unnecessary. Security is not only about reducing risk. It is also about safeguarding the freedoms and values that anchor our country, not only for ourselves but for future generations. Public property should be open to the public. Americans should not be peering at their democracy from behind fences. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 Technical Corrections Act of 2026, which would address several retirement issues for current and former District of Columbia employees that resulted from the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (Revitalization Act). The Revitalization Act, among other things, transferred several categories of employees who were in the D.C. retirement system to the federal retirement system and transferred responsibility from D.C. to the federal government for funding pension benefits earned by D.C. teachers, police officers, firefighters and judges before 1997. First, the Revitalization Act transferred several categories of employees, primarily related to D.C.'s criminal justice system, who participated in D.C.'s defined contribution plan from 1987 to 1997 to the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). However, these employees' service from 1987 to 1997 was not counted for purposes of creditable service or annuity amount in FERS. In 2009, Congress passed legislation counting this service for creditable service, but not annuity amount. This bill would allow these employees to buy into the FERS annuity amount for 1987 to 1997 by paying 1.3 percent of their base pay plus interest, essentially the employee contribution for this time, which would give them the full retirement benefit to which they should be entitled. Second, this bill would address two benefit issues for employees in the D.C. teachers, police officers and firefighters pension plans, whose pre-1997 benefits are funded by the federal government. In 2018, D.C. enacted a law to provide domestic partner benefits for the police and firefighters pension plan, which mirrored a law already enacted for teachers. However, these domestic partner benefits apply only to service accrued after 1997, since the federal government funds pre-1997 benefits. This bill would make the domestic partner benefits available for pre-1997 benefits, too. Finally, in 2012, D.C. enacted a law that reduced from 60 to 55 the age after which a surviving spouse can remarry without losing survivor benefits in the D.C. teachers, police and firefighters pension plans. However, these benefits apply only to service accrued after 1997, since the federal government funds pre-1997 benefits. This bill would bring those pre-1997 benefits in line with both the post-1997 benefits and the retirement benefits for federal employees in the Civil Service Retirement System and FERS and make an analogous change for D.C. judges, whose retirement benefits are funded by the federal government. In general, for federal retirees, 55 is the age after which a surviving spouse can remarry without losing survivor benefits. This bill would give these workers the retirement benefits they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Nation's community supervision professionals, who are dedicated public servants and perform many vital roles in their work with justice-involved adults and juveniles. They identify opportunities and services to help justice- involved individuals contribute to society, while holding them accountable for their actions. They remain mindful of their role in protecting public safety. In honor of Pretrial, Probation and Parole Supervision Week 2026, whose theme is ``Connected for Change: Building Bridges in Supervision,'' we salute all those who have chosen this important career. In the District of Columbia, we especially thank the employees of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA) and the Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia (PSA) for their service. CSOSA and PSA are models of excellence in community supervision. Community supervision agencies are valuable partners of other government agencies, nonprofits, neighborhood-based groups and all who strive to make our Nation safer and stronger. We extend our gratitude to community supervision professionals and recognize their many achievements as we proclaim July 19 through July 25, 2026, as Pretrial, Probation and Parole Supervision Week 2026.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Civil War Defenses of Washington National Historical Park Act, which would recognize and preserve the Civil War Defenses of Washington located in the District of Columbia, Virginia and Maryland. The Defenses of Washington, including forts, unarmed batteries and rifle trenches, created a ring of protection for the nation's capital during the Civil War. This bill would redesignate the 22 Defenses of Washington currently under National Park Service jurisdiction as a national historical park, and allow other sites associated with the Defenses of Washington that are owned by D.C. or a unit of a state government to be affiliated with the national historical park through cooperative agreements. This bill would also require the Secretary of the Interior to facilitate the history of the Civil War, including the history of the Defenses of Washington and the Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864, being assembled, arrayed and conveyed for the benefit of the public for the knowledge, education and inspiration of this and future generations. The Defenses of Washington were constructed at the beginning of the war as a ring of protection for the nation's capital and for President Abraham Lincoln. By the end of the war, the Defenses of Washington included 68 forts, 93 unarmed batteries, 807 mounted cannons, 13 miles of rifle trenches and 32 miles of military roads. The major test of the Defenses of Washington was the Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864, when Confederate Lieutenant General Jubal Early, directed by Confederate General Robert E. Lee, sought to attack the nation's capital from the north, causing Union forces threatening to attack Richmond, the capital of the Confederacy, to be withdrawn. General Early was delayed by Union Major General Lew Wallace at the Battle of Monocacy on July 9, 1864, and was stopped at the northern edge of Washington at the Battle of Fort Stevens on July 11-12, 1864. The Shenandoah Valley Campaign ended when Union Lieutenant General Philip Sheridan defeated General Early at the Battle of Cedar Creek, Virginia on October 19, 1864. Nearly all the individual forts in the Defenses of Washington--on both sides of the Potomac and Anacostia rivers--were involved in stopping General Early's attack, and the Battle of Fort Stevens was the second and last attempt by the Confederate Army to attack Washington. Taken together, these battles were pivotal to the outcome of the war and the freedom and democracy that the war represented for this country. It is therefore fitting to recognize the Defenses of Washington by redesignating them as a national historical park. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the No Fencing at Lafayette Square Act, which would prohibit the installation of permanent fencing around Lafayette Square. This bill would help ensure that one of our nation's most important public spaces remains open and accessible to the public. According to press reports, the Trump administration plans to install permanent fencing around Lafayette Square, a federal park next to the White House. While I understand the importance of protecting the White House, which is already surrounded by a 13-foot-high fence, we can and must maintain our commitment to security without sacrificing public access by using the least restrictive means necessary to address security. Lafayette Square has long welcomed First Amendment demonstrations, vigils and public gatherings. It serves as a place where Americans can peacefully assemble within sight of the White House and engage directly in a democratic tradition. The openness of Lafayette Square and our democracy is our strength, not a security weakness that needs to be fenced off. Permanent fencing at Lafayette Square would send the wrong message to the nation and the world by continuing to transform our democracy from one that is accessible and of the people to one that is exclusive and fearful of its own citizens. Fencing is an incredibly imprecise security tool. It is more likely to keep out tourists, residents, students, and peaceful demonstrators than those determined to do harm. In many respects, it is another form of security theater, where it makes a place look secure while masking the need for more effective and modern security measures. Furthermore, Lafayette Square is in a mixed-use neighborhood. The park is used every day by D.C. residents and visitors from across the country and around the world. The distance between government and the people has grown, with trust in government at an all-time low. We should not increase that distance by placing intimidating barriers between public servants and the people they serve, especially when such barriers are not necessary. Security is not only about reducing risk. It is also about safeguarding the freedoms and values that anchor our country, not only for ourselves but for future generations. Public property should be open to the public. We should not leave citizens peering at their democracy from behind permanent fences. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Fairness in Federal Bureau of Prisons Medical Care Act of 2026. This bill would eliminate the copay the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) imposes on individuals in its custody when they visit a health care provider. Under BOP rules, individuals in its custody are required to ``pay a fee for health services of $2.00 per health care visit.'' While $2 may seem insignificant, individuals in BOP custody earn only twelve to forty cents per hour on their work assignments. Moreover, while copays can reduce unnecessary visits, we should be encouraging individuals in BOP custody to seek medical care before their conditions worsen and become more expensive for taxpayers. Preventive and early care are better for patients and taxpayers than costly treatments. Under BOP rules, if an individual in BOP custody is found responsible through the disciplinary hearing process of having caused an injury to another person in BOP custody that required a visit to a health care provider, the offending individual is required to pay the $2 copay for the injured individual's visit. That rule would not change under this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the United States Commission on an Open Society with Security Act of 2026, which would create a commission to investigate how we can maintain our democratic traditions while actively responding to the real and substantial threats posed by foreign and domestic terrorism. The impetus for this bill was the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Its importance grew after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. The tragic attacks endured by our Nation have led to a series of sweeping security measures that are deemed both necessary and temporary in the moment but create lasting security infrastructure that is difficult to dismantle and infringes on our open, democratic society. We must acknowledge and accept that we have entered an era of constant internal and external threats, requiring ever-higher levels of security for our people and public spaces. What we thought would be a temporary infringement on our open society has turned into a permanent restriction on how our citizens interact with each other and our democratic institutions. Because emergencies typically dictate security decisions, essential discussions on the proper balance between security, individual rights and the freedoms enjoyed in an open society have been repeatedly deferred. This bill would ensure that these long overdue discussions take place in a public forum with experts from across the spectrum. To date, security planning has been delegated almost exclusively to security, intelligence and military experts. Although their input is indispensable, they cannot be expected to consider matters outside of their expertise. To strike a better balance with our democratic traditions, we need to invite experts from diverse fields to the same table to work together. Therefore, the commission would be composed not only of security, intelligence and military experts, but also experts from such fields as business, architecture, technology, law, city planning, art, engineering, philosophy, history, sociology and psychology. We have used commissions before to deeply investigate and address unprecedented challenges, such as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission), the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (also known as the Silberman-Robb Commission) and the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (also known as the Kerner Commission). The commission created by this bill would seek to avert a crisis in basic freedoms before their infringement becomes entrenched. We cannot allow security protocols to proliferate without informed civilian oversight and a thorough analysis of alternatives that might better safeguard freedom and commerce. Furthermore, we have had decades to develop security strategies and technologies that do not deprive our citizens of access to institutions and personal liberty. Thus far, we have either relied on imprecise, medieval approaches like crude barriers or on intrusive new technologies that treat privacy like a privilege instead of a right. We can, and must, do better. As the home of the Federal government, the District of Columbia and its residents have suffered disproportionate infringement on public spaces, personal rights and freedoms in the name of security. Public spaces that serve as the heart of our local communities have become restricted zones characterized by a heavy security presence, with individuals liable to be reprimanded for walking on the wrong side of the street or marveling too long at the architecture. Barriers such as walls and fences are touted as essential security features while our citizens are left peering at their democracy from a distance. Security is not only about reducing lives lost and costs. It is also about safeguarding the institutions, freedoms and values that anchor our country, not only for ourselves but for future generations. The social compact between government and the people should not be the result of a series of hostage negotiations. We must resume reasoned and deliberative decision-making, beginning with a high-level commission composed of experts from diverse disciplines charged with developing a new course that will protect both our people and our precious democratic institutions and traditions. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Courts Judicial Vacancy Reduction Act, which would expedite the appointment of local D.C. judges. Senator Chris Van Hollen is introducing the companion bill. The longstanding judicial vacancy crisis in the local D.C. courts has existed regardless of which party controls the presidency and the Senate because the president and the Senate are, understandably, more focused on nominees to the federal courts and the executive branch than to the local D.C. courts. The sole purpose of this bill is to protect public safety and promote justice by ending the judicial vacancy crisis in the local D.C. courts, which delays the resolution of criminal and civil cases. This bill has nothing to do with D.C. statehood or home rule. Although D.C. will control the local D.C. courts when it becomes a state and Congress can--and should--give D.C. control over the local D.C. courts now, this bill would not give D.C. any new authority over the local D.C. courts. Under the D.C. Home Rule Act, D.C. has no control over the organization or jurisdiction of the local D.C. courts, including the nomination and appointment of judges. A seven-member commission, which is comprised of federal, D.C. and private-sector appointees, submits to the president a list of three persons for each vacancy on the local D.C. courts. The president must nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint one person from the list. If the president fails to nominate one of the persons from the list within 60 days, the commission must nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint one of the persons from the list. This bill would not change the role of the president or the commission in the appointment of local D.C. judges. Instead, it would apply the current congressional review process for bills enacted by D.C. to the appointment of local D.C. judges. Upon nomination, local D.C. judges would be appointed after the expiration of a 30-day congressional review period, unless a resolution disapproving of the appointment was enacted into law during the period. Local D.C. judges are non-Article III judges. The Constitution only requires Senate approval of Article III judges--that is, judges on the federal district courts, the federal appeals courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. Congress has the discretion to decide how non-Article III judges will be appointed, and it has chosen to subject some non- Article III judges to Senate approval, but not others. For example, Congress has not given itself any role in the appointment of bankruptcy or administrative law judges. This bill would strike a middle ground. Congress would retain authority to block the appointment of local D.C. judges, but it would only have a limited period to do so. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the National Commission to Combat Workplace Sexual Harassment Act, which would establish a national commission to combat sexual harassment in the workplace. This bill is modeled on bills Congress has passed to establish commissions to address other national problems. Specifically, this bill would establish a commission to carry out a comprehensive investigation and study of sexual harassment in the workplace, including recommending changes in laws and best practices to prevent, investigate, respond to and penalize sexual harassment. Our constituents expect Congress to address the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace. The commission would hear from a cross section of workers--from office and factory workers to retail and food service workers. A national commission could help reduce sexual harassment in the workplace. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Rock Creek National Park Act of 2026, which would redesignate the United States- owned Rock Creek Park in the District of Columbia as ``Rock Creek National Park.'' Redesignating this park will highlight its significance to the Nation. Rock Creek Park is already a ``national'' park, as it was established by Congress in 1890 ``for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the United States.'' Rock Creek Park was the first federally managed urban park and the third federal park ever created, after Yellowstone and Sequoia. Rock Creek Park was designed to preserve animals, timber, forestry and other interests in the park, and to ensure that its natural state is maintained as much as possible, not only for D.C. residents, but for all Americans. The park also preserves the ancient history of the land, as it was used for temporary settlements and as a quarry for weapons and tools by Native Americans from 7000 BCE until the 1600s. Rock Creek Park offers residents of D.C., Maryland and Virginia, as well as tourists, an escape from our increasingly urban environment. Residents and tourists alike enjoy many activities in the park's 2,000 acres, including hiking and biking, horseback riding, picnicking, tennis and other recreational activities in some of the open fields. Our residents have expressed their appreciation by volunteering to clean up and maintain the park. In 1918, landscape architects John Charles Olmstead and Frederick Law Olmstead, Jr. wrote of Rock Creek Park, ``No matter how perfect the scenery of the park may be or may become, no matter how high its potential value, that value remains potential except insofar as it is enjoyed by large and ever larger numbers of people, poor and rich alike.'' Redesignating Rock Creek Park as Rock Creek National Park will help recognize the national status of this remarkable resource in our Nation's capital. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the No Fencing at the United States Supreme Court Act, which would prohibit the installation of permanent fencing at the U.S. Supreme Court. Since 2021, I have also introduced a bill that would prohibit the installation of permanent fencing at the U.S. Capitol complex. After the Supreme Court's draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, Women's Health was leaked in May 2022, the Supreme Court installed temporary anti-climb fencing around its grounds, which remained in place until late August 2022. While the Supreme Court has not announced plans to install permanent fencing, temporary security measures often become permanent. While I understand the importance of protecting the Supreme Court building, Supreme Court Justices and Supreme Court employees, we can and must maintain our commitment to security without sacrificing public access by using the least restrictive means necessary to address security. Permanent fencing would send an un-American message to the Nation and the world by transforming our democracy from one that is accessible and of the people to one that is exclusive and fearful of its own citizens. The Supreme Court has long welcomed First Amendment demonstrations without becoming a fortress. Public property should be open to the public. The distance between government and the people has grown, with trust in government, including the Supreme Court, at an all-time low. We should not increase that distance by placing intimidating barriers between public servants and the people they serve. There are more effective, less obtrusive security solutions than archaic fencing. Moreover, the Supreme Court is in a residential neighborhood in the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court grounds are widely used by both Washington, D.C. residents and visitors. Permanent fencing would block that use. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Federal Employee Short-Term Disability Insurance Act of 2026, which would make short- term disability insurance available to federal employees. Employees would be responsible for 100 percent of the premiums and would receive benefits for up to one year. Insurance companies would be prohibited from excluding federal employees, or charging them higher premiums, based on preexisting conditions. Many privatesector employers make available disability insurance to their employees. I began examining how we could provide federal employees with short- term disability insurance at group rates and with guaranteed coverage after learning that many of them buy such insurance in the individual market, which can have high premiums and exclude those with preexisting conditions. Although federal employees have good health insurance, health insurance benefits do not replace lost income. Moreover, while federal employees may have available sick or annual leave, they may not have enough such leave to pay the bills if they cannot work for an extended period, such as following surgery. Although the federal government provides disability benefits to federal employees who become permanently disabled, federal employees do not qualify for these benefits until they have worked for the federal government for at least 18 months. The Office of Personnel Management would contract with insurance companies to provide short-term disability insurance. According to the Social Security Administration, a 20-year-old worker has a one-in-four chance of becoming disabled by retirement age. The majority of disabilities are not caused by major accidents, but by injuries or illnesses, according to the Council for Disability Awareness. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Fair Pay Act of 2026. This bill would require that if men and women are doing comparable work, they must be paid comparable wages. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), the first of the great civil rights statutes of the 1960s, has grown creaky with age and needs updating to reflect the new workforce, in which women work as much as men. As the first woman to chair the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where I enforced the EPA, I introduce this bill on behalf of the average female worker, who is often first steered to, and then locked into, jobs with wages that are deeply influenced by the gender of individuals who have traditionally held such jobs. The pay disparity most women face today stems mainly from the segregation of women and men in different jobs and women in female-dominated jobs being paid systematically less. For example, if a woman is an emergency services operator, a female-dominated profession, she should not be paid less than a fire dispatcher, a male-dominated profession, simply because each of these jobs has been dominated by one gender. We need more aggressive strategies to break through the societal barriers present throughout history, as well as employer-steering based on gender, which is as old as paid employment itself. What may be the best case for a stronger and updated EPA occurred in Congress in 2003, when female custodians in the House and Senate won an EPA case after showing that female employees were paid a dollar less per hour for doing the same or similar work as male employees. Had those women not been represented by their union, they would have had an almost impossible task in using the rules for bringing and sustaining an EPA class action lawsuit. This bill would not change the legal burden. Under this bill, as under the EPA, the burden would be on the plaintiff to prove discrimination. The plaintiff must show that the reason for the disparate treatment is gender discrimination, not legitimate market factors. Remedies to achieve comparable pay for men and women are not radical or unprecedented. State governments, in red and blue states alike, have shown that it is possible to eliminate the part of the pay gap that is due to job-steering. Many state governments have adjusted wages for female-dominated professions, raising pay for teachers, nurses, clerical workers, librarians and other female-dominated jobs that paid less than comparable male-dominated jobs. Minnesota, for example, implemented a pay equity plan when it found that traditionally female jobs paid 20 percent less than comparable traditionally male jobs. There may well be some portion of the gender wage gap that is traceable to market factors, but states have shown that you can tackle the gender discrimination-based wage gap without interfering in the market system. States generally have closed the wage gap over a period of four to five years at a one-time cost of no more than three to four percent of payroll. Unequal pay has been built into the way women have been treated since Adam and Eve. To dislodge such deep-seated and pervasive treatment, we must go to the source, the traditionally female occupations, where pay is linked with gender and always has been. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Thomas Atkins, who served as a dedicated member of my staff for almost 20 years, where he worked tirelessly to advance my agenda for all residents of the District of Columbia. Thomas has an extensive political background, having served as the National Volunteer Coordinator on the Jackson for President Campaign '84 and as a Political Director with the Campaign for Military Service. He also served as a leader in the environmental movement and the peace movement and has worked for justice on important political issues. He has made a positive impact on D.C. and the world. As his colleagues will attest, Thomas works with commitment and passion. In my office, his deep dedication to the arts and education were invaluable when he served as the Coordinator of the D.C. Congressional Art Competition Committee. His leadership, enthusiasm and commitment ensured successful competitions, which brought together locally, nationally and internationally renowned educators and artists to serve as committee members and jurors. Through his leadership, the committee was able to offer mentorship to aspiring young artists and facilitate scholarships to esteemed institutions like the Savannah College of Art and Design (Savannah, Georgia) and the Corcoran School of the Arts & Design (Washington, D.C.). The committee also hosted grand receptions and student art exhibits at prestigious venues, including the Smithsonian Institution, the National Building Museum, the Corcoran Gallery of Art, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and notable galleries throughout D.C. Thomas has held several professional roles. He worked in the entertainment industry, where he served as the Personal Representative of Hal Jackson, a founder of Inner City Broadcasting Corporation (ICBC), and his daughter Jane Jackson Harley, Talent Coordinator of the Apollo Theater and the Founder of Kemit Productions in New York City. He is an avid art collector and has traveled extensively around the world. His collection, the TERA Gallery, has been exhibited in the United States and abroad. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to recognize Thomas Atkins for his service and dedication. We all wish him the best in his well-deserved retirement.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Veterans Legal Support Act of 2026, which would allow the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide support to law school clinical programs that provide pro bono legal and support services to veterans, including assistance with disability claims and foreclosures. There are at least 22 law schools that have clinics devoted to veterans' legal needs, including the William & Mary Law School Veterans Benefits Clinic, which was the first recipient of a ``best practice'' certification from the VA. There are many other law schools, such as the University of the District of Columbia's David A. Clarke School of Law, that are interested in starting their own VA-certified clinics. More needs to be done to sustain and increase the number of these programs. I was a tenured professor at the Georgetown University Law Center and continued to teach a seminar there after being elected to Congress. I saw the expert assistance that clinical programs provide their clients. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, a concrete measure that would assist our veterans, who put their lives on the line for this country.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Paul Laurence Dunbar Commemorative Coin Act, which would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue coins in honor of Paul Laurence Dunbar. This bill would recognize one of the first influential African American poets in American literature and benefit the Dunbar Alumni Federation, the alumni association for the Paul Laurence Dunbar Senior High School in the District of Columbia, which was the first public high school for African Americans in the United States. I am a proud graduate of Dunbar, a storied African American high school. Paul Laurence Dunbar was born on June 27, 1872, to formerly enslaved parents, and went on to pen such classics as Majors and Minors and Lyrics of Lowly Life. He also wrote the lyrics for In Dahomey, the first all-African American musical produced on Broadway. By the late 1890s, Dunbar had become a prominent author, having had his poems published in major national newspapers, including The New York Times. Dunbar died on February 9, 1906, at age 33. Paul Laurence Dunbar Senior High School was established in 1870 as the Preparatory High School for Colored Youth. It was the first college preparatory high school for African Americans in the United States. The school was renamed for Dunbar in 1916. The Dunbar Alumni Federation was organized in 2002 to provide scholarships and other financial support to students and graduates of Paul Laurence Dunbar Senior High School. The Dunbar Alumni Federation has alumni from more than 35 graduating classes, and supports the school through its scholarship efforts, community activities and other endeavors. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to mint 50,000 five-dollar coins, 400,000 one-dollar coins and 750,000 half-dollar coins, with a surcharge on each coin. The surcharges would benefit the scholarships and similar activities of the Dunbar Alumni Federation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Ensuring Child Health Coverage Compensation in Divorce Act of 2026. This bill would require all health insurers to directly reimburse a custodial parent for any out-of-pocket medical expenses for a child incurred by such parent if a court directs a noncustodial parent (including a stepparent) to provide health insurance for the child. In a divorce, one parent is typically court-ordered to provide health insurance for a child. However, the other parent may pay for out-of- pocket medical expenses for the child that are reimbursable by the insurer. Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, group health insurers are required to directly reimburse a parent who pays for reimbursable out-of-pocket medical expenses when the other parent has been court-ordered to provide health insurance for a child. However, other health insurers are not required to do so. This bill would require all health insurers to do so. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.