Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia National Guard Home Rule Act, which would give the Mayor of the District of Columbia control over the D.C. National Guard. Senator Chris Van Hollen is the sponsor of the companion bill in the Senate. The governors of the states and territories control their National Guards while the president controls the D.C. National Guard. This bill would give the D.C. Mayor the same control over the D.C. National Guard that the governors of the states and territories have over their National Guards. The president would have the same authority to federalize the D.C. National Guard that the president has to federalize the National Guards of the states and territories. The attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, and the events at Lafayette Square on June 1, 2020, are prime examples of why the D.C. Mayor should control the D.C. National Guard. On January 6th, the Trump Administration delayed deploying the D.C. National Guard to the Capitol for several hours, likely costing lives and prolonging the attack. At Lafayette Square, the Trump Administration used the D.C. National Guard to forcibly remove peaceful protestors for a presidential photo op. Governors generally deploy the National Guard for natural disasters and civil disturbances. The D.C. Mayor, who knows D.C. better than any federal official, should be able to deploy the D.C. National Guard for natural disasters and civil disturbances, too. In the event of a large- scale attack on a federal facility in D.C., the D.C. Mayor would almost certainly deploy the D.C. National Guard to protect the facility. However, in the unlikely event that the D.C. Mayor did not do so, the president would have the authority to federalize and deploy the D.C. National Guard to do so. This is no different from the division of authority today between a governor and the president in the event of a large-scale attack on a federal facility in a state or territory. Moreover, presidential control over the D.C. National Guard creates a loophole in the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the military's involvement in civilian law enforcement. The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel has opined that when the D.C. National Guard is operating for non-federal purposes, even though it is an exclusively federal entity, it may be used for civilian law enforcement without violating the Posse Comitatus Act. Last Congress, the House passed this bill as part of the fiscal year (FY) 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the FY 2023 NDAA. My bill is another important step toward completing the transfer of full self-government powers to D.C. that Congress began with the passage of the Home Rule Act of 1973, when it delegated most of its authority over D.C. matters to an elected chief executive (mayor) and legislature (Council). This bill follows that model. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which would improve public safety in the nation's capital and be a historic advance in D.C. self- government.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Police Home Rule Act, which would repeal the president's authority to federalize the local District of Columbia Police Department, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). The president has no authority to federalize any other local or state police department. Senator Chris Van Hollen is the sponsor of the companion bill in the Senate. Under the D.C. Home Rule Act, ``whenever the President . . . determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the [MPD] for Federal purposes, he may direct the Mayor to provide him, and the Mayor shall provide, such services of the [MPD] as the President may deem necessary and appropriate.'' The president may federalize MPD for a period of not more than 30 days, unless a resolution passed by Congress extending such federalization is enacted into law. Congress may also terminate the federalization at any time by enacting a resolution into law. This bill is necessary, even with these limitations on the president's federalization authority, because, under the principle of self-government, the president should not have control over D.C.'s local police department. While it does not appear that a president has exercised this authority over MPD, this latent power is totally unnecessary, should not exist and is an affront to MPD, which has always voluntarily assisted federal authorities. Given the events at Lafayette Square on June I, 2020, it is imperative that no president be allowed to federalize MPD. Although the Trump Administration did not federalize MPD at that time, the administration attempted to do so, and D.C. officials successfully fought back. MPD's first responsibility is to protect D.C. residents and visitors, and it must always remain under the authority of the D.C. Mayor to accomplish its mission. Moreover, federalization is outdated in light of current practice. MPD regularly assists the federal government as a matter of comity, not as an arm of the federal government, just as other local police departments do in the region and across the country. There are approximately 30 federal police departments under the president's control in D.C. In the case of a federal emergency, the president can unilaterally deploy these federal officers, as well as the D.C. National Guard, and can also request the support of MPD, as the Capitol Police did during the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. The House's Fiscal Year 2022 and 2023 D.C. Appropriations Bills blocked the president from carrying out the federalization provision. This is an important step to increase home rule for D.C., and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce the Emancipation Statue Removal Act, which would remove the Emancipation Statue from Lincoln Park, a federal park in the District of Columbia, and require the Secretary of the Interior to donate the statue to a museum or similar entity. This bill is part of a series of statue and memorial removal bills I am introducing during Black History Month. The Emancipation Statue was dedicated on April 14, 1876, the 11th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln's assassination. Although formerly enslaved Americans paid for this statue, it was designed and sculpted without their input, and it shows. The paternalistic statue depicting a Black man on his knees in front of President Lincoln fails to recognize African Americans' agency in pressing for their own emancipation. Understandably, recently liberated African Americans during the Reconstruction era were grateful for any recognition of their freedom in a country where they still experienced virtually total exclusion from American life. However, even at the time of its unveiling, prominent Black Americans expressed their displeasure with the statue's design, including Frederick Douglass. During his keynote address at the statue's unveiling, Douglass pointedly did not praise the statue. Rather, in a letter to the editor of the National Republican a few days after the unveiling, Douglass expressed his dismay at the statue: ``The negro here, though rising, is still on his knees and nude. What I want to see before I die is a monument representing the negro, not couchant on his knees like a four-footed animal, but erect on his feet like a man.'' In 2020, Boston removed its replica of the statue and plans to place it in a publicly accessible location where it can be better contextualized. It is time for Congress to place the original statue in a museum, too. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank Chair Graves and Ranking Member Larsen for bringing this important bill to the floor. This bill would revoke the independent real estate leasing authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission and direct the Government Accountability Office to update its 2016 report on independent real estate leasing authority in the Federal Government. The House passed this bill last Congress. While a number of Federal agencies have independent real estate leasing authority, the SEC has a history of egregious real estate practices. In 2005, the SEC disclosed that it had unbudgeted costs of approximately $48 million for the construction of its headquarters near Union Station. In 2007, after moving into headquarters, the SEC shuffled its employees to different office space at a cost of over $3 million without any cost-benefit analysis or justifiable explanation. In 2010, the SEC conducted a deeply flawed analysis to justify the need to lease 900,000 square feet and to commit over $500 million over 10 years, overestimating its space needs by over 300 percent. In addition, the SEC failed to provide complete and accurate information and prepared a faulty and backdated justification and approval after it had already signed the lease. In August 2016, the General Services Administration and the SEC entered into an occupancy agreement to authorize GSA to secure a new 15-year lease. In December 2016, GSA, with the approval of SEC, submitted a prospectus to Congress for approximately 1.3 million square feet, which Congress approved in 2018.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me more time. By July 2019, GSA had received final bids, resolved all protests, and even selected a final bidder. A month later, the SEC canceled the occupancy agreement, citing concerns about the value of the purchase option, which SEC refused to document to Congress. The SEC effectively vetoed the entire 3-year procurement process despite not having the authority or funding to exercise the purchase option without GSA's involvement. Finally, after much back and forth between the two agencies, GSA entered into a lease agreement for a new SEC headquarters in September 2021. The SEC says it will continue to have GSA do its leasing in the future, but the SEC's history of egregious leasing conduct, having squandered hundreds of millions of dollars, makes this bill necessary. These public blunders also risk undermining the reputation of GSA and the Federal Government among developers and building owners who participate in Federal lease procurements. The threat of uncertainty ultimately drives up the cost of all GSA real estate procurements. It is time for Congress to return the SEC's leasing authority to GSA, the Federal Government's civilian real estate arm. As the SEC has demonstrated over three decades, it is incredibly inefficient, wasteful, and redundant to have the SEC involved in real estate procurements when GSA exists for that very reason. Like other Federal agencies, the SEC will continue to have input with the GSA and involvement in the real estate decision-making process, but GSA would have the ultimate authority. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Courts Judicial Vacancy Reduction Act. This bill would expedite the appointment of local D.C. judges. The sole purpose of this bill is to protect public safety and promote justice by ending the perpetual judicial vacancy crisis in the local D.C. courts. The longstanding judicial vacancy crisis in the local D.C. courts, which delays resolution of criminal and civil cases, has existed regardless of which party controls the presidency and Senate because presidents and senators are, understandably, more focused on nominees to the federal courts and the executive branch than to the local D.C. courts. 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 could--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 7-member commission, which is comprised of federal, D.C. and private-sector appointees, submits to the president a list of 3 persons for each vacancy on the local D.C. courts. The president must nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint 1 person from the list. If the president fails to nominate 1 of the persons from the list within 60 days, the commission must nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint 1 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 congressional review period for D.C. legislation 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 that 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 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 the authority to block the appointment of local D.C. judges, but it would only have a limited time period to do so. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Securities and Exchange Commission Real Estate Leasing Authority Revocation Act, which would revoke the real estate leasing authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and direct the Government Accountability Office to update its 2016 report on independent leasing authority in the federal government. The House passed this bill last Congress. Since the SEC was granted leasing authority in 1990, before I came to Congress, the SEC has consistently stumbled through leasing mistakes at great expense to taxpayers. It is time for Congress to end this fiasco and return the leasing authority to the General Services Administration (GSA), the federal government's real estate arm, like other federal agencies. When Congress exempted the SEC from GSA regulations and directives in 1990, it expressed its clear intent that ``the authority granted to the Commission to lease its own office space directly will be exercised vigorously by the Commission to achieve actual cost savings and to increase the Commission's productivity and efficiency.'' (H.R. Conf. Rep. 101-924.) Over the past 30 years, none of that has come to fruition. The SEC did not even establish a Leasing Branch until April 2009, and did not put into place any leasing policies or procedures until August 2010. Before that, in May 2005, the SEC disclosed that it had identified unbudgeted costs of approximately $48 million attributable to misestimates and omissions of costs associated with the construction of its headquarters near Union Station. In 2007, after moving into its headquarters, the SEC shuffled its employees to different office spaces at a cost of over $3 million without any cost-benefit analysis or justifiable rationale. In the summer of 2010, the SEC's Office of Administrative Services (OAS) conducted a deeply flawed and unsound analysis to justify the need for the SEC to lease 900,000 square feet of space at Constitution Center and to commit over $500 million over 10 years, overestimating the amount of space needed by over 300 percent. In addition to this gross overestimation of space, OAS failed to provide complete and accurate information and prepared a faulty and backdated Justification and Approval after it had already signed the lease. As a former chair and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, I was deeply involved in oversight of the SEC's real estate activities in the District of Columbia after the agency engaged in this improper sole- source procurement of nearly one million square feet of leased space. We held two hearings on this subject in 2011. At the first hearing, titled ``The Security and Exchange Commission's $500 Million Fleecing of America,'' SEC Inspector General H. David Kotz testified that employees ignored the SEC chair's explicit instructions and engaged in possible criminal violations in a sole-source procurement. He also supported stripping the SEC of leasing authority if the SEC did not undertake major reforms. I agreed with Inspector General Katz's evaluation and introduced legislation to revoke the SEC's leasing authority for the first time. At the second hearing, titled ``The Security and Exchange Commission's $500 Million Fleecing of America: Part Two,'' SEC Chairwoman Mary L. Schapiro testified that ``the SEC recognizes the benefits of having [GSA] manage the Commission's future lease acquisitions. Leasing is not part of the Commission's core mission and we cannot allow it to impede that mission.'' She then explained that the SEC would pare down its leasing program ``solely to liaise with GSA.'' This arrangement, in which GSA manages SEC leasing activities, was memorialized in a Memorandum of Understanding between GSA and the SEC on August 1, 2011. Today, I have concerns that the SEC is going back on the commitment it made to Congress, which is why I am reintroducing this bill. In August 2016, GSA and the SEC entered into an Occupancy Agreement to authorize GSA to conduct the process for a new 15-year lease. In December 2016, GSA, with the approval of the SEC, submitted a prospectus to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for approximately 1,274,000 rentable square feet for the SEC. Congress approved this prospectus in 2018, and by July 2019, GSA had received final bids, resolved all protests and even selected a final bidder. A month later, in August 2019, the SEC canceled the Occupancy Agreement with GSA, citing concerns about the value of the purchase option that was part of the lease, concerns the SEC refused to document to Congress. The SEC effectively vetoed the entire procurement process despite not having the authority or funding mechanism to exercise the purchase option without GSA's involvement. After a few more months of impasse, the SEC requested that GSA cancel the procurement and commence a new procurement process. Finally, after much back and forth between the two agencies, GSA entered into a lease for a new SEC headquarters in September 2021. The SEC says it will continue to have GSA do its leasing in the future, but the SEC's history of egregious leasing conduct, having squandered hundreds of millions of dollars, makes this bill still necessary. These public blunders also risk undermining the reputation of GSA and the federal government among developers and building owners that participate in these lease procurements and ultimately driving up the costs of all GSA real estate procurements due to the threat of uncertainty. This also means that the SEC will continue to engage in short-term leases at a premium while the procurement process plays out again, instead of quickly transitioning to a more cost-effective long- term lease as planned. Congress created this confusion by granting the SEC leasing authority, and now Congress must fix it by revoking that authority. The SEC's mission is to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation. GSA's mission is to provide other civilian federal agencies with workspace and furnishings at best value to the taxpayer. As the SEC has demonstrated over three decades, it is incredibly inefficient, wasteful and redundant to have the SEC involved in the nuances of real estate decisions when GSA exists for that very reason. Like other federal agencies, the SEC would continue to have input and involvement in the decision-making process, but the ultimate real estate authority would lie with GSA, where it belongs. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the District of Columbia Prosecutor Home Rule Act of 2023, which would give D.C. the authority to prosecute all crimes committed under its laws. Congress already lets D.C. write D.C. criminal laws, and lets D.C. enforce them against some violators. Congress should let D.C. enforce them against all violators. This bill would effectuate a 2002 advisory referendum, approved by 82 percent of D.C. voters, to create a local prosecutor's office. Currently, the U.S. Attorney for D.C. has the authority to prosecute most D.C. crimes committed by adults and some by juveniles, while the D.C. Attorney General has the authority to prosecute most D.C. crimes committed by juveniles and some by adults. Giving D.C. the authority to prosecute all D.C. crimes would not only give D.C. residents a say in the enforcement of all their laws, it also would save the federal government tens of millions of dollars a year by reducing the number of assistant U.S. attorneys in the U.S. Attorney's Office for D.C. Last Congress, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform passed this bill as part of my District of Columbia Home Rule Expansion Act of 2022. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Legislative Home Rule Act, which would eliminate the congressional review period for D.C. legislation. D.C. legislation takes effect after a congressional review period, unless a joint resolution of disapproval is enacted into law during the review period. The review period imposes significant costs on both D.C. and Congress, but only 3 disapproval resolutions on D.C. legislation have been enacted since passage of the D.C. Home Rule Act in 1973, and none since 1991. Yet, the D.C. Council has had to develop a Kafkaesque legislative process to comply with the review period, often having to pass the same bill multiple times. Congress loses nothing by eliminating the review period. Congress can legislate on any D.C. matter at any time, and has done so many times outside of the review period, such as through the appropriations process. The congressional review period (30 days for civil bills and 60 days for criminal bills) is based on legislative days, not calendar days, often delaying D.C. bills from becoming law for many months. The delay forces the D.C. Council to pass most bills several times, using a cumbersome and complicated process to ensure that the operations of this large city continue uninterrupted. Placing a congressional hold on D.C. bills has not only proven unnecessary, but has imposed costs on the D.C. government, residents and businesses. D.C. residents and businesses are placed on hold because they have no certainty when D.C. bills, from taxes to regulations, will take effect, making it difficult to plan. It is particularly unfair to require the D.C. Council to engage in this unnecessary, labor-intensive and costly process. Last Congress, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform passed this bill as part of my District of Columbia Home Rule Expansion Act of 2022. I urge my colleagues to support this good-government measure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the District of Columbia statehood bill, formally known as the Washington, D.C. Admission Act. This bill, which the House passed in the 116th and 117th Congresses, is the most important bill I introduce each Congress. The nearly 700,000 D.C. residents, who have all the obligations of American citizenship, including paying all federal taxes and serving in the armed forces, are denied voting representation in Congress and full local self-government. This bill would give D.C. residents the voting representation in Congress and full local self-government they have been denied for more than 220 years. To be content with less than statehood is to concede the equality of citizenship that is the birthright of D.C. residents as American citizens. Congress has a moral obligation and the constitutional authority to pass this bill. This country was founded on the principles of no taxation without representation and consent of the governed, but D.C. residents are taxed without representation and cannot consent to the laws under which they, as American citizens, must live. This bill would admit the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth into the Union and reduce the size of the federal district. The state would consist of the residential and commercial portions of present-day D.C., and the reduced federal district, which would remain under Congress' control, would consist of the Capitol Complex, the White House, the Supreme Court, the principal federal monuments and the National Mall area. This bill complies with the Constitution, including the Admissions Clause, the District Clause and the 23rd Amendment. The Admissions Clause gives Congress the authority to admit new states. All 37 new states were admitted by Congress. No new state was admitted by constitutional amendment. No state would have to consent to the admission of the State of Washington, D.C. The District Clause gives Congress plenary authority over the federal district and establishes a maximum size of the federal district. It does not establish a minimum size or a location of the federal district. Congress reduced the size of the federal district by 30 percent in 1846. The 23rd Amendment allows the federal district to participate in the Electoral College. This bill would repeal the enabling act for the 23rd Amendment and the 23rd Amendment would be repealed quickly. In any event, the 23rd Amendment does not establish a minimum size or a location of the federal district. The Constitution does not establish any prerequisites for new states, but Congress generally has considered three: population and resources, support for statehood and commitment to democracy. The State of Washington, D.C. would meet each. D.C.'s population is larger than that of two states, and the new state would be one of six states with a population under one million. D.C. pays more federal taxes per capita than any state and pays more federal taxes than 23 states. D.C.'s gross domestic product is larger than that of 17 states. Eighty-six percent of D.C. residents voted for statehood in 2016. In fact, D.C. residents have been fighting for voting representation in Congress and local autonomy for more than 220 years. I seek statehood for the Americans I am honored to represent. At the same time, D.C. statehood is deeply personal for me. My great- grandfather Richard Holmes, who escaped as a slave from a Virginia plantation, made it as far as D.C., a walk to freedom but not to equal citizenship. For generations, my family has been denied the rights other Americans take for granted. There are many other D.C. residents like me. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, these rules are a gratuitous attack on already limited rights of D.C. residents. Our residents have all the obligations of citizenship, including paying all Federal taxes, but are denied voting rights in Congress and full local self-government. To add insult to injury, these rules take away floor privileges of the D.C. Mayor. The rules continue to grant Governors and 16 other categories of people, including foreign ministers, floor privileges. Not only does D.C.'s Mayor operate like State Governors--including managing a jurisdiction that has both a budget and population larger than those of several States--but Congress has undemocratic plenary authority over D.C. and regularly uses this authority to legislate on local matters. While D.C. deserves statehood, if any non-member of Congress deserves and needs floor privileges, it is D.C.'s Mayor.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 7535) to encourage the migration of Federal Government information technology systems to quantum- resistant cryptography, and for other purposes.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I strongly support the Quantum Computing Cybersecurity Preparedness Act. Last year, Congressman Khanna came to me about a grave national security threat looming on the horizon. Today, the processes we use to encrypt data are very reliable and can keep sensitive data secure during storage or transmission. But tomorrow, that may no longer be the case. Researchers around the world are making rapid advances toward quantum computing, which is the application of quantum physics to allow computers to perform calculations many magnitudes faster and more powerfully than they do today. While quantum computers have the potential to provide considerable benefits to society, it is also increasingly likely that they could allow our adversaries to break the best encryption we are capable of today. Capabilities of this magnitude are likely still a decade or more in the future, but China and other adversaries are expected to begin stealing sensitive encrypted data much sooner to unlock it when they have the capacity to do so. It is essential that the Federal Government prepare for this inevitability now, while we still have time to protect data that is critical to our national and economic security. The process of migrating all Federal IT systems to quantum-resistant cryptography will be complex and costly, but we need to start laying the groundwork for this today. I applaud Mr. Khanna, as well as Ms. Mace, Mr. Connolly, and Senator Hassan, for introducing the Senate companion, all of them for putting forth a thoughtful, bipartisan bill to establish that very process. This bill would require the Office of Management and Budget to quickly issue guidance requiring Federal agencies to create and maintain inventories of all cryptographic systems currently in use, as well as all Federal IT systems that could be vulnerable to future quantum computers. Within a year, OMB would be required to submit to Congress a strategy for addressing the risk posed by quantum computing, allowing time for assessment of this strategy before the National Institute of Standards and Technology is expected to issue its standards for how to deal with quantum computing in 2024. The OMB would then be required to issue guidance requiring agencies to develop a plan to migrate their IT systems to quantum-resistant cryptography using those standards and to consult with the Chief Information Officers Council to prioritize agency IT systems for migration based on risk. The bill before us today provides more concrete direction to support this vision, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I urge concurrence in the Senate amendment to H.R. 7535, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5349) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1550 State Road S-38-211 in Orangeburg, South Carolina, as the ``J.I. Washington Post Office Building''.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this measure.

Ms. NORTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5349, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1550 State Road S-38-211 in Orangeburg, South Carolina, as the J.I. Washington Post Office Building.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 5349, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this measure.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 8665) ``to amend title 44, United States Code, to remove pronouns from such title that reference the Archivist, and for other purposes.''

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 8665, the National Archives and Records Modernization Act would make a small, yet important update to the U.S. Code. This bipartisan bill would remove references to the pronoun ``he'' when referring to the Archivist and other senior officials of the National Archives and Records Administration, or NARA. I thank Representative Ro Khanna, chairman of the Subcommittee on the Environment on the Oversight Committee for his leadership on this incredibly important bill. I would also like to recognize Representatives Yvette Herrell, Katie Porter, Byron Donalds, and Danny Davis, who are all original cosponsors. As the Nation's recordkeeper, NARA plays a critical role in the preservation of the government's most important documents and materials. NARA's mission is to provide equitable public access to the records of the Federal Government because public access to records strengthens democracy and allows all Americans to understand their history so they can fully participate in government. Currently, the NARA is being led by Debra Steidel Wall who is serving as Acting Archivist of the United States, and has been a public servant at NARA for more than 30 years. However, the United States Code does not reflect in its text that women can hold this important position. The code is outdated in its references to the Nation's Archivist and other senior officials as men. It is long overdue that we update title 44 to remove reference to pronouns in the law that wrongly assume that only a man can hold this important role. Madam Speaker, I strongly support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 8665, and I yield back the balance of my time.