Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the Women Who Worked on the Home Front World War II Memorial Act, which would authorize the establishment of a memorial on federal land in the District of Columbia commemorating the efforts of the 18 million American women who kept the home front running during World War II. I thank Senators Tammy Duckworth and Marsha Blackburn for introducing the companion bill in the Senate. The House passed this bill by voice vote last Congress. As a teenager, Raya Kenney, the founder of the non-profit Women Who Worked on the Home Front Foundation and my constituent, came up with the idea of a memorial to honor the women on the home front who supported the World War II effort. She rightfully questioned why the women on the home front whose efforts were so instrumental in maintaining the stability of the country during World War II have not received as much recognition for their contributions as the men who fought bravely in World War II. This bill would authorize the Women Who Worked on the Home Front Foundation to establish a memorial to honor these women. The memorial is designed to be interactive and to educate visitors on the important roles women played during World War II. Between 1940 and 1945, the percentage of women in the workforce increased from 27 percent to nearly 37 percent, and by 1945 one in four married women worked outside of the home. The work done by women on the home front opened doors for women in the workplace widely and had a profound effect on the job market going forward. As a result of their efforts, millions of American women on the home front redefined ``women's work'' and paved the way for future generations. Many women also played critical roles in support of the war effort. More than 10,000 women served behind the scenes of World War II as code breakers. Due to the classified nature of their work, they did not receive recognition for their tireless efforts until recently. Women were also trained to fly military aircraft so male pilots could leave for combat duty overseas. More than 1,100 female civilian volunteers flew nearly every type of military aircraft as part of the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP) program. WASP flew planes from factories to bases, transported cargo and participated in simulation strafing and target missions. These women were not given full military status until 1977, and it was not until 2010 that they were recognized with the Congressional Gold Medal. Women have been historically underrepresented in our memorials, particularly the memorials on federal land in the nation's capital. It is fitting to authorize a memorial that would allow millions of visitors to D.C. to understand and honor the heroic efforts of these women and their lasting impact on the fabric of our society. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia National Guard Federal Employee Leave Fairness Act, which would correct a legislative drafting error and clarify that members of the D.C. National Guard (DCNG) who are federal civilian employees are entitled to leave without loss in pay or time from their civilian employment when they are mobilized by the DCNG. In 1899, Congress codified in the D.C. Code the original authority for entitlement to leave when federal civilian employees were mobilized by the DCNG. In 1968, that authority was moved into 5 U.S.C. 6323. In that same year, Congress authorized two additional leave entitlements in 5 U.S.C. 6323 as well as established an offset provision in 5 U.S.C. 5519 referencing those two additional leave entitlements. However, because the U.S. Code had not yet been updated to include the earlier DCNG authority, the Code contained a duplicate subsection, one referring to DCNG mobilizations and one to a more general leave entitlement for the National Guard and Reserves. My bill would restore Congress' original intent regarding DCNG mobilizations by correcting this legislative drafting error and clarifying that the pay and benefits of DCNG members who are federal civilian employees are not subject to the offset in 5 U.S.C. 5519. The only change required to fix this leislative drafting error is to remove the erroneous reference to DCNG mobilizations in 5 U.S.C. 5519. This change would positively impact the hundreds of dedicated federal civilian employees who are also members of the DCNG, providing them the full pay and benefits they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, as the Congresswoman from the District of Columbia, where the January 6 insurrection occurred, I was one of the first Members of Congress to call for and introduce legislation to create a 9/11-style commission to investigate the attack and to ensure that it never happens again. I strongly support the commission bill. The supplemental security appropriations bill provides $66.7 million to eliminate the long-running deficit in the Federally-funded D.C. Emergency Planning and Security Fund. That fund pays for the unique public safety and security costs D.C. incurs as the Nation's capital, and is designed to cover the District's costs up front, so that D.C. does not have to expend local funds for Federal purposes and seek an appropriation to be reimbursed after the fact. Over the last several years, our Republican colleagues have opposed fully funding the D.C. Fund. The January 6 insurrection shows Congress must never shortchange security in the Nation's Capitol again. I also appreciate that the appropriations bill would mirror two of my bills.

Ms. NORTON. I also appreciate that the appropriations bill would mirror two of my bills, prohibiting the use of funds in the bill to install permanent aboveground fencing at the Capitol complex, and requiring Capitol Police officers to wear body cameras. In February, I introduced legislation to prohibit funds for permanent fencing at the Capitol complex, and in March the House passed my bill to require Federal police officers to wear body cameras as part of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the Marijuana in Federally Assisted Housing Parity Act. My bill would permit the use of marijuana in federally assisted housing, including public housing and Section 8 housing, in compliance with the marijuana laws of the state where the property is located. Individuals living in federally assisted housing should not be denied admission, or fear eviction, for using a legal product. Adult use and/ or medical marijuana is currently legal in 36 states and the District of Columbia, and over 90 percent of Americans support legalized medical marijuana. Under current federal law, users of drugs that are illegal under federal law, including marijuana, are prohibited from being admitted into federally assisted housing. Moreover, federal law allows landlords to evict residents of federally assisted housing for using illegal drugs. The federal government has begun to change it approach to marijuana. In 2018, the Food and Drug Administration approved Eipdiolex, which is derived from marijuana. Eipdiolex is used to treat children who suffer from seizures. Notably, the medicine does not contain tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the psychoactive component in marijuana. For the last several years, Congress has prohibited the Department of Justice (DOJ) from using federal funds to prevent jurisdictions from implementing their medical marijuana laws. This bill would similarly allow individuals to use marijuana in federally assisted housing in compliance with a state's marijuana laws. HUD, like DOJ, should not be allowed to enforce federal marijuana laws where states have taken action to legalize marijuana. Under my bill, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) must also develop regulations that restrict smoking marijuana in federally assisted housing in the same manner and to the same locations as the Secretary restricts smoking tobacco in federally assisted housing. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act of 2021, a version of which I have introduced since 1994, after working with the District of Columbia residents who were responsible for the Nuclear Disarmament and Economic Conversion ballot initiative passed by D.C. voters in 1993. My bill still requires the United States to sign and ratify an international agreement to disable and dismantle America's nuclear weapons, to provide for strict control of fissile material and radioactive waste and to use nuclear-free energy. In lieu of joining such an agreement, this version of the bill also gives the United States the option to ratify the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (Treaty). Many nations have already signed the Treaty. The Treaty was drafted by the United Nations in conferences in March and July of 2017, which is why I did not include it in my previous bills. According to the United Nations, the Treaty is ``a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.'' I am pleased by the international progress on this important issue. The bill continues to provide that the funds used for nuclear weapons be redirected to human and infrastructure needs, such as housing, health care, Social Security, restoring the environment, and creating carbon-free, nuclear-free energy. The conversion to a peace economy would occur when the President certifies to Congress that all countries possessing nuclear weapons have begun elimination under an international treaty or other legal agreement. Our country still has a long list of urgent domestic needs that have been put on the back burner. As the only nation that has used nuclear weapons in war, and that still possesses one of the largest nuclear weapons arsenals, my bill would help the United States reestablish its moral leadership in the world by redirecting funds that would otherwise go to nuclear weapons to urgent domestic needs. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentlewoman, for her leadership on this D.C. statehood bill. Congress has both the moral obligation and the constitutional authority to pass H.R. 51. 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. The State of Washington, D.C., would consist of 66 of the 68 miles of the present-day Federal District. The Federal District would be 2 square miles, and Congress would retain plenary authority over it. H.R. 51 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 State was admitted by constitutional amendment, and 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--100 square miles. 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. H.R. 51 repeals the enabling act for the 23rd Amendment, and the 23rd Amendment itself would be quickly repealed. In any event, the 23rd Amendment does not establish a minimum size or 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 of 712,000 is larger than that of two States. D.C. pays more Federal taxes per capita than any State and pays more Federal taxes than 21 States of the Union. The District of Columbia's gross domestic product is larger than 17 States. In 2016, 86 percent of D.C. residents voted for statehood. D.C. residents have been petitioning for voting representation in Congress and local autonomy for 220 years. Congress has a choice. It can continue to exclude D.C. residents from the democratic process, forcing them to watch from the sidelines as Congress votes on Federal and D.C. laws, and to treat them, in the words of Frederick Douglass, as ``aliens, not citizens, but subjects.'' Or it can live up to our Nation's founding principles and join the 54 percent of Americans--that is 54 percent, Mr. Speaker, and growing--who support D.C. statehood and pass H.R. 51.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding and for his support of H.R. 51. The rule before us is not ordinary. It is the prelude to history, and I use that word advisedly. Last Congress, the House passed the D.C. statehood bill, the first time either Chamber of Congress had passed the bill. This Congress with Democrats controlling the House, Senate, and White House, D.C. statehood is within reach for the first time in history. As a result of education from House proceedings like today's, 54 percent of the American people support D.C. statehood according to a wide-ranging poll that has just been released, and we predict that with increasing exposure, that percentage will continue to rise. For the 220 years since D.C. became our capital, District residents, who have had all of the obligations of citizenship, including paying full Federal taxes and serving in the Armed Forces, have been excluded from much of American democracy. The citizens who live in our Nation's Capital have never had voting representation on the floor of either Chamber of Congress, and Congress has always had the final say on their local affairs. This is uniquely un-American. It is undemocratic. For me, it is deeply personal. My own family has lived in D.C. since my great-grandfather Richard Holmes as a slave walked away from a plantation in Virginia and made his way to D.C. almost 200 years ago. Richard Holmes made it as far as D.C., a walk to freedom but not to equal citizenship so far for our family.

Ms. NORTON. During debate on D.C. statehood Thursday, we will make the case that Congress has the constitutional authority to admit the State of Washington, D.C., and that the State would meet all the elements Congress has considered in admission decisions. For now, it is sufficient to note that throughout its existence in the United States the United States has flattered itself as a democracy, even though it is the only democratic country that denies voting representation in the national legislature to the residents of the capital. With passage of this rule today and the D.C. statehood bill on Thursday, the United States will be one step closer to deserving the term democracy.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the American Bar Association supporting passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act. American Bar Association, April 13, 2021. Re ABA Urges Passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act. Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Bar Association (ABA), the largest voluntary association of lawyers and legal professionals in the world. I am writing to urge you to vote for passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would update the Equal Pay Act of 1963 enacted by Congress almost 60 years ago to prohibit gender-based pay inequality. This legislation, which is expected to come to the floor this week, has the support of working men and women across the country who want this nation to live up to its expressed commitment to equal pay for equal work. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits an employer from paying unequal wages to male and female workers who perform jobs under similar work conditions that require substantially equal skill, effort, and responsibility unless there is a legitimate reason for a pay differential. The Paycheck Fairness Act does not alter the basic scheme of this statute or impose unreasonable burdens on employers; indeed, the majority of its proposed changes are borrowed from other civil rights statutes that have proved more effective in eradicating workplace discrimination. We would like to respond to some persistent misperceptions regarding this important legislation: Enactment of this bill will not compel businesses to pay their female workforce substantially more money to eliminate the existing wage gap. The purpose of this bill is to update the Equal Pay Act, which only applies in situations where women or men are receiving unequal pay for equal work. It does not create a new mandate. Employers already have a legal obligation to pay men and women equal wages for equal work unless there is a legitimate reason for the differential. Enactment of this bill will not interject the government into the pay decisions of businesses. The Paycheck Fairness Act does not tell employers what factors to use to set pay; it only requires that pay decisions are job- and business- related. Enactment of this bill will not make employers liable for any and every wage differential. An employer will still have four affirmative defenses and will not be guilty of wage discrimination if a pay differential is based on (i) seniority, (ii) merit, (iii) a system that measures quantity or quality of production, or (iv) a ``factor other than sex.'' 29 U.S.C. 206(d)(l). The only difference is that Paycheck Fairness Act will resolve uncertainty in the law over how to apply the fourth defense by redefining it as ``a bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience.'' Enactment of a provision to clarify the ``factor other than sex'' defense will not eviscerate legitimate use of the defense. It is intended to prevent employers from asserting that unequal pay was the result of market force-derived excuses such as prior salaries or negotiation outcomes. A bona fide factor other than sex must be job-related, consistent with business necessity, and account for the entire differential in compensation at issue. The only time this defense would not apply would be in situations where an alternative employment practice is available that would serve the same business purpose without producing the wage differential and the employer has refused to adopt it. Enactment of this bill will not encourage more lawsuits and jeopardize post-pandemic economic recovery. The bill is designed resolve uncertainties in the law and increase employer compliance with the Equal Pay Act, not to encourage more lawsuits. The bill's strengthened remedies, which align with those available in other employment discrimination statutes, will encourage employers to review their wage-setting practices and rectify those that are based on invalid justifications. Men and women who are paid fairly have no incentive to jeopardize their jobs and subject themselves to costly, time- consuming, and emotionally taxing lawsuits brought against their employers. The bill's clarification of the ``factor other than sex'' defense will not spawn new litigation. Instead, it will provide guidance to the courts and resolve uncertainty in the law. The standard, which is adapted from Title VII discrimination cases and codified in the Civil Rights Act of 1991, is one with which courts already are familiar. The bill will help strengthen the economy by improving the present and future economic welfare of working women, who comprise about one-half of the workforce and are the primary breadwinner in more than 12 million American families. We urge you to demonstrate your commitment to equal pay for equal work by voting for the Paycheck Fairness Act. Thank you for your consideration of our views. Sincerely, Patricia Lee Refo.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to strongly support H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act, a critically important bill. As the first woman to chair the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I enforced the Equal Pay Act. I particularly appreciate that H.R. 7 would bring long-awaited strength to the EPA. I especially appreciate that Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, a great champion for equal pay, has included my Pay Equity for All Act in H.R. 7, where I will focus today. The Pay Equity for All Act would prohibit employers from asking job applicants their salary history. Even though many employers may not intentionally discriminate against applicants or employees based on gender, race, or ethnicity, setting wages based on salary history is routinely done in the workplace and can reinforce the wage gap. Evidence clearly shows that members of historically disadvantaged groups often start their careers with unfair and artificially low wages compared to their White male counterparts, and these disparities are compounded from job to job. Job and salary offers should be based on an applicant's skill and merit, not on salary history. This bill addresses this problem by assessing penalties against employers who ask applicants for their salary history during the interview process.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today I introduce the District of Columbia Juror Pay Parity Act, which would require that D.C. Superior Court jurors receive the same pay as federal jurors. The importance of jurors to our system of law is driven home by the current trial of Derek Chauvin for the death of George Floyd. Currently, Superior Court jurors are paid $40 per day, and, under the Home Rule Act, only the D.C. courts and Congress have the authority to increase Superior Court juror pay. In the fiscal year 2018 omnibus appropriations bill, Congress increased federal juror pay to $50 per day, the first increase to federal juror pay in 28 years. My bill would give Superior Court jurors the same pay. Under the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33), Congress took responsibility for paying for the D.C. courts and other state-like functions provided by D.C. The D.C. courts, however, have always been under the control of Congress, even when they were funded by the District. The Home Rule Act prohibits the District government from enacting any law relating to Title 11 of the D.C. Code. Title 11 provides that the Board of Judges of the Superior Court sets juror pay, but that the pay may not exceed the pay of federal jurors. Therefore, this bill, or action by the D.C. courts, is necessary to increase Superior Court juror pay. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia National Guard Commanding General Residency Act, which would require the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard to reside in the District of Columbia, just as States and territories can require that the top official of their National Guard reside within their State or territory. The D.C. National Guard is a Federal entity. Currently, the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard is not required to reside in the District. Congress has justifiably required that certain Federal officials reside in the jurisdiction they serve to ensure in-depth knowledge of the unique issues and challenges residents and these Federal officials face. Additionally, the Mayor of D.C., unlike the Governors of the States and territories, cannot deploy the National Guard, making residency of the Commanding General of the National Guard that much more important, though my District of Columbia National Guard Home Rule Act (H.R. 657) would give the Mayor the authority to deploy the D.C. National Guard. The appointment of the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard is made by the President, not the Mayor, whereas the top official of the National Guards in the States and territories are usually appointed by the Governor. All of these are compelling reasons why the Commanding General of the D.C. Guard should be required to be a D.C. resident. This bill follows in the footsteps of several other bills that I have introduced that would require Federal officials serving D.C. exclusively to reside in the District. For example, my District of Columbia Federal Officials Residency Equality Act (H.R. 3785, 116th Congress) would require the Federal district court judges, Federal circuit court judges, U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals for the District to live in D.C. I have also previously introduced a bill (H.R. 4184, 116th Congress) that would require the Director of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia and the Director of the District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency to reside in the District. With the nomination of the current D.C. National Guard Commanding General, Major General William J. Walker, to be the House Sergeant at Arms, this bill is more timely than ever. Moreover, the attack of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, and the events at Lafayette Square on June 1, 2020, are prime examples of why this bill is so important. Residents of the District would feel at least somewhat more confident in the D.C. National Guard if the Commanding General were required to be a D.C. resident. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the Washington, DC Area Helicopter Noise Information Exchange Act of 2021, which would require the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to implement a Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommendation to create a mechanism to exchange information about helicopter noise in the Washington, DC area between FAA and helicopter operators. I am pleased that Representatives Gerald E. Connolly and Donald S. Beyer, Jr. from Virginia and Representatives Jamie Raskin, Anthony G. Brown and David J. Trone from Maryland join me in introducing this bill, underscoring its regional importance. Residents of the District of Columbia and the national capital region (NCR) have been plagued by helicopter noise for years. Yet, there is no centralized complaint system nor any comprehensive data about helicopter noise in the NCR. In January 2019, Representatives Connolly, Beyer, Raskin, Brown, Trone and I wrote GAO requesting that it conduct a study of helicopter noise in the NCR. In that letter, we wrote, ``Many of our constituents live with the impacts of regular helicopter noise that interrupts sleep patterns, causes their homes to shake and negatively impacts their quality of life. While disturbances from helicopter noise have been a longstanding problem for some, others have noted recent increases in the frequency and severity of helicopter noise in their neighborhoods. We understand that helicopter activity is an essential part of law enforcement, military and medical operations and appreciate the critical efforts of employees serving in those sectors. However, we also believe that, through information collection, analysis and coordination, we can identify strategies to minimize the negative impacts of helicopter activity without impeding the work of the agencies operating helicopters within the region.'' In response to our request, GAO announced in June 2019 that it would conduct the study. GAO released its report in January 2021. GAO found that FAA's current ability to work with helicopter operators in the NCR is limited because of the absence of effective information sharing mechanisms. GAO recommended that FAA direct its Office of Environment and Energy to develop a mechanism to exchange helicopter noise information with operators in the NCR. FAA concurred with GAO's recommendation, but this bill would require FAA to develop such a mechanism. This bill would direct the creation of a more effective information sharing mechanism, which would also allow for better, more comprehensive data on helicopter noise complaints. This data would in turn help us develop solutions to address helicopter noise. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, March 24th was Equal Pay Day, which marked the number of additional days a woman must work to earn what a man earned the prior year. The 1963 Equal Pay Act (EPA), the first of the great civil rights statutes of the 1960s, has grown creaky with age and needs updating to reflect the new workforce, in which women work almost as much as men. What maybe the best case for a stronger and updated EPA occurred in the Congress in 2003, when female custodians in the House and Senate won an EPA case after showing that female workers were paid a dollar less per hour for doing the same or similar work as males. Had 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. My own experience as the first woman to chair the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission afforded me the opportunity to enforce the EPA. However, if women are to get equal pay, they need the Fair Pay Act (FPA). I again 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. Much of the wage inequality women experience today is because of employer-steering and deeply rooted wage stereotypes, which result in wages paid according to gender and not according to the skill necessary to do the job. I introduce the FPA because the pay disparity most women face today stems mainly from the segregation of women and men in different jobs and paying women in female-dominated jobs systematically less. Two-thirds of white women and three quarters of African-American women work in just three areas: sales/clerical, service and factories. We need more aggressive strategies to break through the societal barriers present throughout history the world over, as well as employer-steering based on gender, which is as old as paid employment itself. The FPA would require that if men and women are doing comparable work, they must be paid comparable wages. If a woman, for example, is an emergency services operator, a female-dominated profession, she should not be paid less than a fire dispatcher, a male-dominated profession, simply because each of these jobs has been dominated by one gender. If a woman is a social worker, a traditionally female occupation, she should not earn less than a probation officer, a traditionally male job, simply because of the gender associated with each of these jobs. The FPA would not tamper with the legal burden. Under the FPA, 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 discrimination. Twenty state governments have adjusted wages for female-dominated professions, raising pay for teachers, nurses, clerical workers, librarians, and other female-dominated jobs that paid less than comparable male-dominated jobs. Minnesota, for example, implemented a pay equity plan when it found that traditionally female jobs paid 20 percent less than comparable traditionally male jobs. There may well be some portion of the gender wage gap that is traceable to market factors, but 20 states have shown that you can tackle the gender discrimination-based wage gap without interfering in the market system. States generally have closed the wage gap over a period of four to five years at a one-time cost of no more than three to four percent of payroll. In addition, many female workers routinely achieve pay equity through collective bargaining, and countless employers provide it on their own as they see women shifting out of vital female-dominated occupations as a result of the shortage of skilled workers, as well as because of the unfairness to women. Unequal pay has been built into the way women have been treated since Adam and Eve. To dislodge such deep-seated and pervasive treatment, we must go to the source, the traditionally female occupations, where pay is linked with gender and always has been. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Pay Equity for All Act of 2021, which would help eliminate the gender and racial pay gap by prohibiting employers from asking job applicants for their salary history before making a job or salary offer. Even though many employers may not intentionally discriminate against applicants or employees based on gender, race or ethnicity, setting wages based on salary history can reinforce the wage gap. Members of historically disadvantaged groups often start their careers with unfair and artificially low wages compared to their white male counterparts, and the disparities are compounded from job to job throughout their careers. Last Congress, the House passed the Pay Equity for All Act as part of the Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 7). The Pay Equity for All Act would help ensure that applicants' salaries are based on their skills and merit, not on salary history, by assessing penalties against employers that ask applicants for their salary history during the interview process or as a condition of employment. It would also provide job applicants and employees with a private right of action against employers that violate these provisions. There is much work to be done to address the wage gap. This bill would be an important step toward addressing these disparities. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, as the member representing the District of Columbia in Congress, I am proud and honored that the District has the oldest continuously active LGBTQ civil rights organization in the nation, the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, D.C. (GLAA). GLAA has worked tirelessly for LGBTQ people in D.C. since its founding in April 1971. April of this year marks GLAA's 50th anniversary. This is an incredible milestone in the history of D.C.'s premier LGBTQ organization. Over the past 50 years, GLAA has worked tirelessly for the passage of many important legislative and policy measures that affect LGBTQ Americans, especially in the District. Equality for all Americans has always been a priority for me in Congress, but equal treatment for LGBTQ people has long held even greater significance to me. Congressional opponents of equality for LGBTQ people have used D.C.'s unique status as a weapon against LGBTQ people in D.C. For example, I had to defeat many bills and amendments that would have blocked D.C.'s marriage equality law. I was pleased to celebrate GLAA's work to help pass the D.C. Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act in 2010, which removed any doubt in the District of the right of same-sex couples to marry. The act served to recognize same-sex marriages five years before the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. This remarkable effort exhibits the dedication and success that GLAA has displayed throughout its history. Its work extends well beyond this and includes a commitment to strengthen and enforce the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977 to include protections for LGBTQ seniors and transgender Washingtonians. GLAA has done extensive coalition-building and continues to defend the rights of LGBTQ youth and seniors, particularly when it comes to issues surrounding policing, healthcare, housing and consumer protection. What GLAA has done, and continues to accomplish, in these very personal and meaningful areas of life for LGBTQ residents should be applauded and uplifted. I have confidence that the future will bring even more success with GLAA's presence in our community, for which we should all be grateful. I ask the House to join me in honoring GLAA and celebrating GLAA's 50 years of remarkable, distinguished service to and advocacy for the LGBTQ community in the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I rise to introduce the Consider Teachers Act of 2021, which would improve the service obligation verification process for Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant Program recipients. The Senate passed a version of this bill last Congress, and Senators Mike Braun and Kyrsten Sinema are introducing the Consider Teachers Act of 2021 today. The TEACH Grant Program was created by the federal government in 2007 to attract the best and brightest to the teaching profession in underserved communities. The TEACH Grant Program provides up to $4,000 a year in grants to students who agree to serve for at least four years as a full-time teacher in a high-need field in a public or private elementary or secondary school that serves low-income families. The obligation to teach four years must be completed within an eight-year period. Those who do not fulfill their service requirement but have been given grants have their grants converted into Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford Loans, which must be paid back with interest. These loans cannot revert to grants. According to the Office of Management and Budget, 66 percent of the grants are converted into loans. Though 21,000 recipients have completed the program without conversion, 94,000 recipients have had their grants converted to loans. Those conversions are often triggered by small paperwork issues, such as submitting the annual form one day late or missing a date or signature. In 2018, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) released a reconsideration process for recipients who had their grants converted into loans but had either fulfilled, or could still fulfill, their teaching requirements. The Department also turned back the clock to allow teachers who left the TEACH Grant Program once their grants were converted to give them more time to complete their requirements. These changes allowed the Department to lift the debt of 2,300 recipients. This bill would codify this reconsideration process and mandate that the Department continue to implement it, creating a safeguard from changes in Department leadership. This bill would also outline yearly deadlines and notification requirements to rectify some of the TEACH Grant Program's previous administrative mishaps. Furthermore, with the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, many recipients have had trouble finding qualifying work. This bill would create a grace period for these individuals by extending the fulfillment period by three years for anyone who was fulfilling their obligations when the coronavirus pandemic began. This past year has given us all a hard lesson in the invaluable service that teachers and educators provide to our society. As many young students have turned to homeschooling and remote learning, we have all come to appreciate the hard work and incredible talent of our teachers, who foster the mental, physical and emotional growth of our children every day. This bill ensures that that pipeline of talent for the teaching profession remains strong and that we do not unduly burden TEACH Program recipients, who have dedicated themselves to serving our most vulnerable communities. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the National Guard Housing Equity Act, which would codify into law a new National Guard Bureau (Bureau) policy on housing allowances. Under federal law, National Guard members who are deployed on active duty for 30 days or less receive the Basic Allowance for Housing Reserve Component (BAH-RC). National Guard members who are deployed on active duty for 31 days or longer receive the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH). BAH-RC is less than BAH. This can lead to unfair results. For example, when District of Columbia National Guard members were deployed to respond to protests in the District last summer, they were originally deployed on orders for less than 30 days, but ended up serving for over 30 consecutive days. However, they only received BAH- RC. After I raised this issue with the Bureau, the Bureau informed me that it would change the policy to allow a National Guard member who served over 30 consecutive days, no matter the length of their initial deployment orders, to receive BAH. This bill would codify this new policy into law. This bill would ensure National Guard members receive the full benefits to which they are entitled and ensure that they are not shortchanged because of guesswork on how long a deployment might last. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the police who are to receive Congressional Gold Medals: The U.S. Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, and the other law enforcement agencies that participated in protecting the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The insurrection that day halted the final leg of congressional business declaring Joe Biden President of the United States. Yet, Congress was able to continue with its business that evening and early the next morning because of the help of the law enforcement officers we honor here today. Then-President Donald Trump urged the crowd to the Capitol and delayed using his authority to deploy the D.C. National Guard in the country's moment of crisis. As a result, I have reintroduced a bill that would give the mayor of the District of Columbia control over the D.C. National Guard, and I am hopeful that this bill will be brought to the floor during this Congress. It cannot be forgotten that the damage done would have been worse were it not for the Metropolitan Police Department, our local police, funded by D.C. taxpayers, who were was responsible for indispensable intervention when most Federal police forces did not appear, saving lives at the Capitol on January 6. I appreciate this recognition for the work of our local police force. An important way to reward them would be to ensure that the people they protect in the Nation's capital are given full and equal rights by passing the D.C. statehood bill. Congratulations again to the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, the U.S. Capitol Police, and the other law enforcement agencies on these congressional gold medals, which are well deserved for the protection they provided to our democracy on January 6.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I rise to introduce the Washington Channel Public Access Act. This bill would prohibit the Secretary of the Army from finalizing, implementing or enforcing a proposed rule, or any other rule, that would restrict access to the Washington Channel (Channel) in the District of Columbia. The proposed rule is arbitrary, capricious and unnecessarily restricts recreational and commercial access to the Channel without providing any security benefits. The proposed rule would establish a permanent restricted area in the Channel adjacent to Fort McNair, which would restrict access to the navigable portion of the Channel by narrowing the waterway where recreational and commercial vessels can traverse and prohibiting anchoring and mooring altogether. The U.S. Army Military District of Washington cites security needs at Fort McNair to justify the proposed rule. Neighborhoods like the Navy Yard and the Wharf have reinvigorated community engagement on the waterfront, and the Channel is increasingly used for regional transportation and recreation. The stretch of the Channel past Fort McNair is the only connection to the Potomac River. The proposed rule would likely force kayaks, paddleboards and recreational boats into the same space as water taxis and river cruise ships, creating a potentially dangerous situation. I hosted a public meeting in which community members expressed overwhelming opposition to the proposed rule, but military officials did not address the question of whether less restrictive measures could provide the same security. I then wrote asking Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to direct the U.S. Army Military District of Washington and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to withdraw the proposed rule and to prohibit these agencies from proposing a similar rule. In response, the U.S. Army indicated that the proposed rule will not be finalized until an appointee of President Biden can review it. Despite this positive response, this bill is necessary to ensure the proposed rule, or any other rule that would restrict public access, does not go into effect. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I rise to introduce the National Children's Museum Act, which would require the General Services Administration (GSA) to enter into a cooperative agreement with the National Children's Museum (NCM), a congressionally designated museum, to allow the museum to remain in the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, a federally owned building in the nation's capital, without charge for the duration of its existing lease. The National Building Museum operates under such an agreement. Last Congress, on November 17, 2020, the House passed this bill by voice vote. This bill would allow the NCM, the nation's first combination children's museum and science center, to remain centrally located in the nation's capital for the benefit of the millions who visit and live in the District and the national capital region (NCR). Originally named the Capital Children's Museum, the NCM was a staple in D.C. for decades. The institution opened in 1974 in a former convent on H Street Northeast. In 2003, Congress recognized the immense value in having a children's museum in D.C. and officially designated the museum as the NCM. Now, the museum is bringing new and innovative science, technology, engineering, arts and math (STEAM) exhibits to the nation's capital, building on more than 30 years of educating D.C. children and families. Despite the many benefits it brings to the nation's capital, the NCM is an outlier. It is the only congressionally designated museum expected to pay rent in a federal building. Importantly, this bill would relieve concerns about the ability of the NCM to survive the coronavirus pandemic. When the museum reopened last year in the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, it immediately attracted many visitors from throughout the NCR and the nation, but was forced by the coronavirus pandemic to close 18 days later. At this time, the museum remains closed until further notice. Still, the museum has continued to offer valuable STEAM resources to our children as they navigate these new challenging learning circumstances, including over 75 at-home experiment and project video programs, monthly podcasts, virtual field trips and a Climate Action Heroes Digital Exhibit, among other resources. This bill would allow the NCM to remain centrally located in the nation's capital for the benefit of the millions who visit and live in the District and the NCR. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the extraordinary service of Josephine Morse, who served in the House Office of General Counsel as a Deputy General Counsel. During her tenure, Ms. Morse, a District of Columbia resident, played an integral role in safeguarding the legal interests of the House and its Members, Officers, and employees in federal court litigation involving issues of the highest institutional importance. Ms. Morse provided invaluable legal counsel and representation to numerous House committees, greatly assisting them both in fulfilling their constitutionally authorized oversight functions and defending those prerogatives in litigation. Ms. Morse provided vital legal counsel to the House in both impeachments of President Trump and in defense of longstanding institutional prerogatives. Those prerogatives included the House's constitutional authority under the Appropriations Clause and the power of House committees to issue subpoenas for both documents and testimony from the White House and Executive Branch agencies. Of particular importance to the District of Columbia, Ms. Morse's legal work in litigation involving the District's quest to obtain the fundamental right of voting representation in Congress was exceptional, and her oral advocacy on behalf of the House's position in support of voting representation for the District before a three-judge district court was highly effective. Ms. Morse's work on behalf of the House was of the highest caliber, and I have no doubt that the Office of Management and Budget, which she recently joined, will benefit from her outstanding legal counsel. On behalf of the entire House community, I thank Ms. Morse for her dedicated service to the House, and I wish her the very best in all of her future endeavors.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Membership on Capitol Police Board Act, which would make the chief of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) an ex officio, non-voting member of the Capitol Police Board (Board). The Board oversees the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) and security for the U.S. Capitol complex and is comprised of three voting members (the House Sergeant at Arms, the Senate Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper and the Architect of the Capitol) and one ex officio, non-voting member (the USCP chief). My bill would give the MPD chief the same status on the Board as the USCP chief. The events and aftermath of the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, demonstrate the need for D.C. membership on the Board. Not only would the MPD chief's membership on the Board help improve coordination between USCP and MPD, which helped save the Capitol and its occupants after USCP was overrun during the attack, it would force the Board to consider the interests of D.C. residents in its decision-making. The Board's decisions affect D.C. residents more than any other Americans, but no member of the Board has any obligation to consider the perspective and needs of D.C. residents. D.C. residents continue to bear the brunt of the security decisions the Board has made since the attack. For example, the fencing around the Capitol complex has forced D.C. emergency vehicles and residents to take detours and has prevented access to the Capitol grounds, which are used by neighborhood residents for recreation and relaxation. I support the calls to evaluate whether the Board is the right mechanism to oversee security at the Capitol, but as long as the Board is in existence, D.C. should have membership on it. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, with final passage of President Biden's American Rescue Plan expected tomorrow, the priorities I pressed for, including $1,400 in direct payments per person and $26 billion in rental assistance makes the Rescue Plan live up to its name. The rescue extends to the District of Columbia, which retrieves $755 million taken from the District when Republicans treated the District as a territory in the CARES Act. Instead, the new bill treats D.C. as a State as usual because D.C. residents pay full Federal taxes, and it funds D.C. for city, State, and county levels because D.C. provides services at all three levels. This bill resisted the Republican plan for less money because the American people want to be rescued now, not later. The American Rescue Plan Act will hasten doing our business together again on this House floor and getting the American people back to business and to school.