Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1654, the Federal Register Modernization Act, is a good- government bill that will reduce waste and save taxpayer money. I thank my good friend from North Carolina, Representative Meadows, for his work on this important measure. The bill would modernize the Federal Register to take advantage of modern technology and increase efficiency. The bill would give the Office of the Federal Register the flexibility to publish the Federal Register electronically. It also allows agencies to stop sending unnecessary paper copies of documents when they send materials to be published in the Federal Register. That one step alone could save significant sums of money that could be used more efficiently to address the needs of the American public. H.R. 1654 also makes certain technical changes, of course, to a statute that was originally written in 1935 and does need some updating. This is exactly the kind of legislation Congress should be passing. It is bipartisan; it is noncontroversial; and it would make modest improvements to bring the Federal Government into the digital age so that information is more accessible to the public. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I think it should be noted that all the bill does is give flexibility, flexibility to publish the Federal Register electronically, so I suspect that there will still be paper copies. But apparently, the Office of the Federal Register doesn't think it can go online with the Federal Register, so that is very disturbing this late into the digital age. I regard this bill, the bill of my good friend, I regard it as not prescient, because it should have happened a long time ago, but absolutely necessary, and I commend him for this bill. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to yield back. Unless my good friend has something further today, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I thank my friend for yielding. There is a reason that this bill is H.R. 1. It shows that we are not there yet in building a more perfect democracy. Nothing illustrates that better than H.R. 1's findings on D.C. statehood. These findings document the District's long adherence to all the qualifications for statehood. Since the founding of the Republic, serving in all the Nation's wars, paying Federal income taxes--in fact, leading the country, per capita, in Federal income taxes paid today--if anything, H.R. 1's findings show that the District is overqualified for statehood--witness the $2.8 billion surplus and its population larger than that of two States. Yesterday marked 200 cosponsors for our D.C. statehood bill. Today, passage of H.R. 1 would set a historic milestone, marking the first vote for the necessity for D.C. statehood in the 218 years the District has been the capital of the Nation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Bayard Rustin Stamp Act. This bill would direct the United States Postmaster General to issue a forever stamp to commemorate the life and work of Bayard Rustin. Born March 17, 1912, Bayard Rustin became one of the most important leaders in the 20th century civil rights movement. At a young age, Rustin learned the values of nonviolence and peacekeeping from his grandparents' Quaker faith, and he would continue to build these values into his life as a civil rights movement leader. Rustin attended City College of New York, where he joined a progressive club that aimed to remedy racial issues during turbulent times. His time with the club was short lived, but it inspired him to join the Fellowship of Reconciliation, an organization that became a champion for labor rights, equity and world peace. His time with the Fellowship of Reconciliation led Rustin to become a leader in the 1947 ``Journey to Reconciliation,'' where white and black people across the South rode buses together to challenge segregation laws, a precursor to the Freedom Rides. Rustin was an advisor in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s inner circle as he advocated pacifism and nonviolence for achieving equal treatment for African Americans. He applied his brilliant strategic mind to the use of aggressive, peaceful action in the civil rights movement and throughout his life as an activist. His most important role was as the chief organizer of the 1963 March on Washington, D.C., the largest demonstration ever organized at the time, in which a quarter of a million people turned out to demand civil rights for African Americans. In the years after the civil rights movement, Rustin used his background as a gay man to inspire others to advocate for and to achieve LGBT rights. He remained a strategist and public speaker for workers' rights movements, including co-founding the A. Philip Randolph Institute for black trade union members. Rustin committed to promoting social good, and advocating for the disenfranchised, until his death, in 1987. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Zoning Commission Home Rule Act. This bill would give the District of Columbia the authority to appoint all members of the D.C. Zoning Commission (Commission). Currently, the Commission consists of two federal officials (the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) and the Director of the National Park Service (NPS), or their designees), and three mayoral appointees, subject to D.C. Council approval. The federal officials are members even though the Commission has no authority over federal property. Land use is a quintessential local matter in our country. Despite the D.C. Home Rule Act, which gave the District jurisdiction over its local matters, 40 percent of the members of the Commission are federal officials, who are unaccountable to the more than 700,000 residents who live in the District. The federal government would lose nothing as a result of this bill because the federal government's land-use interests in the nation's capital are protected by federal law and federal agencies. The Commission creates the zoning maps and regulations, which must ``not be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan for the national capital.'' The mayor is responsible for the local elements of the comprehensive plan, subject to Council approval. The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), which is the central federal planning agency for the federal government in D.C. and approves federal projects here, is responsible for the federal elements of the comprehensive plan. This bill would not alter the comprehensive plan process or the authority of NCPC and the Commission. This bill would immediately remove the AOC and the Director of the NPS from the Commission, and the Commission would, at least initially, consist solely of the three mayoral appointees. The District would have the authority to reconstitute the membership of the Commission through local legislation. This is an important step to increase home rule for the District, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, this week was, for all intents and purposes, D.C. Statehood Week in the Capital. I am pleased that, today, Senator Carper has announced that he is introducing the Washington, D.C. Admission Act to make the District of Columbia the 51st State. I am grateful to Senator Carper, who garnered a record number of Senate cosponsors last year and has been a most vigorous champion of statehood for the District of Columbia. I come to the floor for my first time this session to discuss D.C. statehood because we have many new Members who may be under the mistaken impression that the 700,000 people who live in your Nation's Capital are treated in the same rights that your own residents are. I beg to differ. In this city, the citizens do not have each and every right in this Congress. To be sure, we have what is called home rule, and I will later indicate that even that is limited. The reasons for this unique place, for our Capital, left without the full rights of other citizens, has to do with a quirk, an accident, where the Framers came to believe that the Capital should not be part of a State because they were, in the beginning, parts of various States, and they felt that they could not then control what the Capital would do. Well, of course, they don't want a Capital to be part of a State, but they didn't really envision statehood, the Capital as a State, because they were thinking of the Thirteen Colonies. And since every city had to be in a State, they could only envision putting the city in a State. We are about 218 years beyond that, and it is time, way past time-- shall I say, overdue in time--to understand how the Nation's Capital of the greatest nation in the world should be viewed and what rights its citizens should have. So I am very grateful to Senator Carper for the work he has done and for his introduction of the bill in the Senate this week, the counterpart of the D.C. statehood bill, which I have already introduced in the House. The bill I have introduced already has 198 cosponsors. I bet--I haven't looked closely, but there is probably no bill in the hopper that has more cosponsors than the D.C. statehood bill. It is not bipartisan yet. That will happen, because this is how we make progress on matters in the House of Representatives. We go one House at a time. Remember, the District doesn't have any representation in the Senate; yet we have gotten a distinguished Senator introducing the statehood bill, and he has been most energetic, getting the majority of the Democratic Senators on the bill last session. I am particularly moved today because of the record number of D.C. residents and their colleagues who came to the Congress yesterday to demand that they have equal rights with all other American citizens. I greeted a room full of residents who had visited every office to tell Members what they don't know. I am grateful particularly that the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has strongly endorsed D.C. statehood. I believe that means that D.C. statehood will be on the floor this session. I want to thank our Speaker for making D.C. statehood a priority, and indicating in her own words how important it is that every citizen be treated equally. In the same way, Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings has committed to holding a hearing on D.C. statehood, and I will predict this afternoon on the floor that that bill will get out of committee and come to the floor of the House for a vote. The progress we are making on D.C. statehood is also seen in the inclusion of our statehood demands in what is called H.R. 1. That is an all-democracy bill that tries to improve and make sure that full democracy in every form is present in the United States. In H.R. 1 are extensive findings for D.C. statehood. I thank the Democratic majority for including the District of Columbia and its plea for statehood in this all important pro-democracy bill. It is called the For the People Act, and H.R. 1 was the first bill introduced. Most Members who come to the Congress come knowing only that the Nation's Capital is where all these wonderful memorial buildings are. They know that it is a tourist mecca. Many may have come as children or even as adults, as tourists. They probably don't know that 30 million visitors from all over the world visit our Nation's Capital. In other words, most Members of the House who, by the way, will spend more time in the District of Columbia than they will spend at home, still don't know very much about their own Capital City. They probably don't know that only in America does the legislature not grant full representation to their Capital City. Well, I have just voted on the House floor. I vote on amendments, but I did not vote on the final bill. I do vote in what is called the Committee of the Whole. The reason I am able to vote there is that, when I first came to Congress in 1991, I saw that I could, indeed, vote in committee, and I knew there was something called the Committee of the Whole. Well, what is the difference between voting in committee, like the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, for example, where I have always served and voted, what is the difference between that and the Committee of the Whole? No difference. Both are committees that were created by the Congress, not the Constitution. So, since I vote in committee, I asked for the right to vote in the Committee of the Whole. It was granted. But only in America, again, could the following happen: my Republican friends sued the House for allowing the vote in the Committee of the Whole. The courts looked at that, pronounced the right of the Congress to give that vote in the Committee of the Whole, just as the District has the vote in committee, and my Republican friends then appealed. At the Court of Appeals, the verdict was, yes, the District of Columbia can vote in the Committee of the Whole, just as they vote in committee. And my good Republican friends didn't quite have the nerve to appeal that one to the Supreme Court, but what they did do, when Democrats lost the House 2 years later, was to take away a vote, that the courts had said was legitimate, from the residents of the District of Columbia, who are number one per capita in taxes paid to support the government of the United States. And therein lies the outrageous anomaly. Those who pay the most taxes per capita have the least rights. That is why we are determined to get our rights. Yes, I have just voted on two gun safety amendments that were on this floor today. I couldn't vote on the final bill, but I could vote on those amendments. They were important amendments relating to background checks. By the way, something like 97 percent of the American people in one poll were shown to favor background checks. That means you check to see if a person has a criminal background and shouldn't have a gun. What is the controversy in that one? So I was able to vote on those two amendments. This is all by way of self-help, thinking through what is it I can do to make sure the people I represent have the maximum of representation they can. I sure am not crying about what I cannot do, when you consider what I can do. I am chair of the most important subcommittee now in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Through that committee, I have been able to rebuild whole parts of the District of Columbia: The Wharf, the Southwest Waterfront as it is called; the southeast waterfront, Capitol Riverfront; parts of Washington, like NoMa. I have been able to do a great deal. That is not the issue. The issue is equal. Not equal for me personally; equal for those I represent, who have paid their dues without getting their rights. When I say, ``pay their dues,'' I want to elaborate on that. The city I represent has one of the strongest economies in the Nation. It has a budget of about $14 billion. That is larger than the budget of 12 States. Many States are crying poor, trying to tax or not tax their residents, embroiled in that controversy. The city I represent has a $2 billion surplus. Its per capita income, the per capita income of the Americans who live in your Capital City, is higher than that of any State. Now, we are about the equivalent in size of seven states. Our per capita income, though, is higher than that of any State. Take your biggest States, Texas and New York and California: higher per capita income. That tells you about how much economic activity there is in your Nation's capital. This city, which is something of a city state, has residents whose personal income is higher than that of seven States; we do not cry poor. Our population growth is among the highest in the Nation. People want to live in your Nation's capital. It is one of the most pleasant, livable cities in our country. What do they pay per capita in taxes? $12,000 per resident in taxes to support a government that does not give them equal rights. Our Armed Forces--Armed Forces with representatives from every State, it should be known--has always had residents of the District of Columbia who fought and died in every war, including the war that created the United States, the Revolutionary War. You, of course, are aware of that war, the war that was fought for taxation without representation. No wonder District residents are demanding that our Congress live up to that great slogan and standard. Now, as I indicated, it is not as if we don't have any rights. The Congress passed the Home Rule Act in 1974--I will speak later about the deficiencies of the Home Rule Act--but that means that the city does have its own elected mayor and its own elected legislature, its council. How did we get that? Well, first of all, it took over 100 years after the Civil War. The first home rule was given to the Capital City by Republicans in the 19th century who had fought and won the Civil War, where those in my party the Democrats had fought on the side of slavery. Republicans fought on the side of freedom, and when it saw it had a capital that did not have freedom, it gave the District home rule. Now, the Republicans had rather much lost their way, as the Democrats certainly had, for more than 100 years, but when Richard Nixon was President of the United States, the Home Rule Act was passed. I would just like to read a few of his words. He said, in signing the bill: ``As a longtime supporter of self-government for the District of Columbia, I am pleased to sign into law a measure which is of historic significance for the citizens of our Nation's Capital.'' He went on to say: ``I,'' that is Richard Nixon, now, ``first voted for home rule as a Member of the House of Representatives in 1948, and I have endorsed the enactment of home rule legislation during both my terms as President.'' This was bipartisan, finally. And Republicans, that party, that post- war party, post-World War II party, deserves credit for understanding that the time had come for the Capital City to have home rule. That home rule was not complete, in the sense that, and most importantly, the District budget has to come here, and it becomes a foil on which to press amendments to overturn laws that people may not like. I have been able to defeat most of those riders, as we call them, or attempts to take down D.C. laws, but the D.C. budget shouldn't come here at all. I recognized that while pursuing statehood, I could get close to statehood by simply finishing the Home Rule Act and making it whole and complete, and so I embarked on a two- track road. One, of course, is the one I have just discussed: D.C. statehood. The other is what I call free and equal D.C. bills, bills that together bring us close to statehood. I started with a congressional review amendment. This one is really nonsensical. The District passes a law. Ultimately, most of those laws matter not to the Congress and certainly aren't overturned, but the Home Rule Act says that the law shall not become final for 30 days, and that is 30 consecutive days. The House is not in session consecutive days. This is Thursday, for example. We are out, so I don't know if it is 3 or 4 days this week that would be counted, but you have to count up till you get to 30 days, and then, of course, the bill can become law. Well, it always does. No one uses this particular power at all. If they want to overturn D.C. laws, then they simply try to attach it to appropriations as they come. So this is completely unused, but it is terribly burdensome on the city, because you simply have to keep renewing these bills that have been passed in the District until you get finally through the 30-day period. It is ridiculous: not used by the Congress, burdensome on the city, should and could be gotten rid of without anyone noticing it in the Congress or caring about it. So I began with that one, which the Congress can't possibly care about, because it doesn't even use it ever. But look at some of the other things that could be done even without statehood, which is leading me to embark on this two-track system. For example, the District of Columbia does not have a local prosecutor, like a district attorney, for example, or a state's attorney. The U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, a Federal official, not chosen by the District of Columbia, but by the President of the United States, is essentially the district attorney for the District of Columbia. We have no say in this. And that U.S. attorney has a jurisdiction that has nothing to do with what U.S. attorneys do in other States. It is local law. 90 percent of what the U.S. attorney has as jurisdiction is local law, like the law a DA would enforce. About 10, sometimes 15 percent of his work is Federal. We want to send him back to all of his Federal work, give him time to do all of that so that we would have a local prosecutor. That is one of the bills that this Congress could pass, House and Senate, and hardly think about it, because it is certainly uncontroversial that the city have its own law enforcement officer to enforce its criminal laws. And there is a National Guard rule act. Now, that is the equivalent of what I am speaking of when I say that the Congress should have no interest, only the District. The National Guard cannot be called out in the event, for example, of a hurricane or a huge snowfall or a flood, only the President of the United States can. The President of the United States does not need to be bothered with tasks related to ordinary emergencies in the District of Columbia. Somehow, the Mayor would have to find the President and say: Please call out the National Guard. That is the local National Guard. We don't want jurisdiction over the National Guard when it comes to national matters. We want the same jurisdiction that the States have. The States have the right to call out the National Guard to protect their residents when there are natural disasters. That is, essentially, what we are asking for. So that, too, is part of my Free and Equal D.C. series. Again, there are 20 of these bills. Let me just indicate one other: the District of Columbia Home Rule Clemency Act. I investigated how often clemency is allowed or has been afforded, and I found only one instance. I will tell you why. The President of the United States alone can offer clemency to someone who has broken local law. Do you think he bothers or, for that matter, should bother? That is why they don't post anyone who gets clemency in the District of Columbia. These are the kind of local matters that are holdovers, absolute holdovers, from the days when the District had no home rule. We can't possibly hold our heads up as a democracy and have matters like this that cannot be attended at the local level. Occasionally, someone comes forward with the notion: We understand, Congressman. We want to make sure that the residents of the Nation's Capital have the same rights as other places. Here is what we would like to do. You come out of a portion of land, contributed by the State of Maryland, so why not return the District of Columbia to Maryland, then you would get your full and equal rights? Well, the first thing you ought to do is ask Maryland about that. Then you might ask the District of Columbia. And here I have the answers, I think. Statehood is endorsed by 86 percent of D.C. residents. Retrocession, as it is called, has no constituency either in Maryland or in the District. This is how I know that. There was a poll taken in Maryland asking whether or not they thought the District of Columbia should be returned to Maryland. Now, understand, Maryland is a very progressive jurisdiction, but it only has one big city. That is the city of Baltimore. It apparently is not welcoming of another city which has formed its own identity as a State and, for that reason, has an identity as a big city. I am not surprised that a poll of Maryland legislators found that 92 percent of Maryland Senators oppose retrocession of the District to Maryland, and 82 percent of Maryland Delegates--that is their lower house--oppose retrocession. What I think this points up is that there are no easy answers: taking a city that is almost as old as the Nation itself--the District became the Capital City in 1801--and somehow finding some easy answer, which turns out to be even harder. It is hard enough to get the Congress to recognize statehood. Now, suppose we have to go to Maryland, in the case of retrocession, and D.C. to get that answer. That is a harder road to climb. It is not democratic, because that is not what Maryland wants and that is not what the District of Columbia wants. It is a very mechanical answer to a very deep problem. I indicated that I just voted in the Congress in the Committee of the Whole, and I have voted now, in this new Congress, which is about 8 weeks old, two or three times. Each of those votes are of such great significance to the people I represent. It encourages them to believe that they will have a vote not only in the Committee of the Whole, but they will have a vote where every other American has a vote. For them, I can only say that they have overpaid, in every conceivable way, for equal rights--yes, by fighting and dying in every war and, yes, in Federal taxes paid, per capita, a larger amount than any residents. For me, of course, this is a labor of love because I was born and raised here. I am the daughter of a runaway slave who ran away from Virginia. It is interesting that he ran away and found himself and settled in the District of Columbia as an illegal immigrant, I suppose--a runaway slave--but there was work here. He found work in the city and began to raise work helping to build the city because they were building the roads of the city at that time in the 1830s. It was no part of his vision that the District would ever have the same rights as other Americans, certainly no part of his vision, as then still a slave, that he would have anything to do with it. So, this afternoon, as I think about my city and strive for its equality, I think of my great-grandfather, Richard Holmes, who sought freedom for himself and his family the only way he could: by simply walking off of a plantation and making his way to the District of Columbia. In his name, I am honored to seek more of that freedom and equality for the 700,000 Americans who now live in our Nation's Capital. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Non-Discrimination Home Rule Act of 2019 to end the unique applicability of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) to the District of Columbia. My bill would protect the District's right to self-government, ensuring the District is treated the same as states, and defend LGBTQ and reproductive rights in D.C. RFRA, which provides more protection for religious exercise than the First Amendment requires, applies to the federal government, the D.C. government and the territorial governments, but not to state governments. As RFRA does not apply to the states, under the principles of home rule, it should likewise not apply to the District. While RFRA was designed to be a shield to protect religious freedom, it is being used, as evidenced by the Supreme Court's 2014 Hobby Lobby decision, as a sword to discriminate against the LGBTQ community and women. Members of Congress have used RFRA as a justification for trying--but failing--to overturn D.C. antidiscrimination laws. House Republicans have repeatedly tried since 2015 to nullify or block the District's Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act (RHNDA), which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees and their families based on reproductive health decisions, claiming, in part, that it violates RFRA. However, it appears that no one has challenged RHNDA's legality under RFRA in court. My bill ensures that District residents are treated the same as residents of the states under RFRA. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Clemency Home Rule Act, a bill that would give the District of Columbia exclusive authority, like the states and territories, to grant clemency to offenders prosecuted under its local laws. While District law appears to give the mayor authority to grant clemency (D.C. Code 1-301.76), it is the opinion of the Department of Justice (DOJ) that the president, and not the mayor, has the authority to grant clemency for most offenses prosecuted under D.C. law, particularly felonies prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney in the D.C. Superior Court. Under current practice, clemency petitions for D.C. convictions, like federal convictions, are submitted to the DOJ for the president's consideration. Whether or not DOJ's view is correct, my bill would remove all doubt that the District, and not the president, has the authority to issue clemency for local offenses. The District, like the states and territories, should have full control of its local criminal justice system, the most basic responsibility of local government. Since the D.C. Council has the authority to enact local laws, District officials are in the best position to grant clemency for local law convictions. My bill would provide clemency authority to the District government and would give D.C. the discretion to establish its own clemency system. This bill is an important step in establishing further autonomy for the District in its own local affairs. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, tomorrow, our residents who are fortunate to live in our Nation's Capital will come to the Capitol as part of their Lobby Day to ask the Congress to pass the D.C. statehood bill. Most Americans are unaware that the Americans who live in their Nation's Capital have the fewest rights of any Americans. That is at the same time that those 700,000 residents who live in the Nation's Capital pay the highest taxes per capita, higher than the taxes of the residents of any State. As you might imagine, the residents of the District of Columbia are seeking to become the 51st State of the Union. I am pleased that already almost 90 percent of Democrats are on our D.C. statehood bill. I am grateful to Senator Carper, who will soon introduce this same bill on the Senate side. There are many reasons that no Americans should fail to have equal rights if they pay equal taxes. But surely, service in every war the Nation has fought, even beyond being first per capita in Federal income taxes, should qualify the 700,000 residents of the District of Columbia for equal treatment as the 51st State. On this poster, we see why any State would stand for its rights: World War I, more casualties of people who live in the District of Columbia than three States; the Korean war, more casualties than those of eight States; World War II, casualties are more than four States; and the Vietnam war, casualties that outnumber those in 10 States. The residents of the District of Columbia will be here to say to my colleagues that 200-plus years--it is about 218 years now--without equal rights is 218 years too many. Nobody who lives in our country and pays taxes should be unrepresented on this floor when votes are taken. I appreciate that I can now vote for the District of Columbia in the Committee of the Whole, where some votes are taken. But District resident have no representation on this floor and none in the Senate at all. It is past time to right this wrong. We cannot do it for those who have died in war for our country. We can certainly do it in their memory.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I don't even want to speak to the underlying issue. I want to speak to what it is we are doing here with congressional power. The President signed a bill. He didn't have to. He could have retained his power. Now he proposes to ignore the bill he signed and act as if the Congress did not exist. This is the road to dictatorship. Congress cannot ever agree with an executive that takes our power. That is what Trump is trying to do. We have gradually given up our power, sometimes for expediency sake, sometimes to avoid controversy. Today, we put all on notice that we will not give the power that belongs only to Congress to the President of the United States.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank my good friends for working together to produce this magnificent lands package. Mr. Speaker, this lands package takes all our precious land seriously, including our urban parks. I particularly appreciate that this bill allows the District of Columbia to receive full State grant funding for our city parks. First off is Franklin Park in downtown D.C. to be rehabilitated with public-private partnership money using Federal, local, and private- sector funding. This bill incentivizes the private sector to step up and do its part to see that our public parks are as good for business as they are for people. The Founders of the Capital city made sure that the Capital would be a city of parks. Watch us set an example for urban parks throughout the country by supporting this important legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the important contributions of Armand Derfner to the advancement of civil rights in the United States. In 1940, on his second birthday, Armand Derfner and his Jewish parents fled Nazi Germany to America. Derfner graduated from Princeton University in 1960. He would go on to receive Princeton's Koren Prize in History and a Woodrow Wilson Foundation Fellowship directly following his graduation. Derfner attended Yale Law School, where he was the Note & Comment Editor of the Yale Law Journal and was Order of the Coif. Following his graduation from Yale Law School, Derfner clerked for Chief Judge David L. Bazelon on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Derfner then became an associate at Covington & Burling. After practicing law in the District of Columbia, Derfner moved to Jim Crow Mississippi to practice as a civil rights lawyer. His passion for social and political justice led to his being stalked. His dog was even poisoned, and he and his wife were shot at multiple times. While in Mississippi, Derfner acted as a civil rights attorney for the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. In 1968, Derfner represented voters in Greenwood, Mississippi, on the first day that the Voting Rights Act became effective. At just 29 years old, Derfner argued and won his first Supreme Court case. From the 1960s through the 1990s, Derfner played a vital role in civil rights cases, taking many of them to the Supreme Court. Derfner argued before the Supreme Court five times and won every case. These Supreme Court arguments helped shape the Voting Rights Act and its amendments. Derfner also contributed to the passage of the Civil Rights Attorneys Fees Awards Act in 1976 and the Equal Access to Justice Act of 1980. It was Derfner's work that led to the freeing of the Charleston Five, a protest group that was falsely accused of inciting violence. In the 1980s, while still attached to civil rights work in Mississippi, Derfner worked closely on civil rights issues with Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy and simultaneously taught at American University. In 2002, Derfner was awarded the Trial Lawyer of the Year Award by the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice. In 2009, the American Bar Association named Derfner's firm, Derfner & Altman, Public Interest Lawyers of the Year. He is an honorary lifetime trustee on the Board of Trustees for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Derfner has just been named the recipient of the 2019 Commitment to Justice Award from the Center for Heirs' Property Preservation. I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Armand Derfner for his dedication to civil rights and for his significant contributions to recognizing equal justice under the law.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce a bill to require the Library of Congress to install the District of Columbia seal in the Main Reading Room of the Thomas Jefferson Building of the Library of Congress. The Library is one of the few buildings in the District that remains open to the public on most holidays. It provides not only D.C. residents but visitors and researchers from across the nation with access to incomparable resources. The bill requires the Library to depict the District's seal on the stained-glass windows in the Main Reading Room, where the seals of all the states and territories that existed when the building was constructed, except for the District, are depicted. D.C.'s seal was readily available at that time and should have been included. The seals of Hawaii and Alaska are not included in the display because they were not states or territories when the building was constructed. The fact that these two states were not part of the Union at the time of the creation of the stained-glass windows argues for the inclusion of the District, which, after all, was in fact the nation's capital at the time. We are asking that the omission of D.C. be corrected immediately. This omission was brought to my attention by a District resident, Luis Landau, a former docent at the Library. The residents of the District have always had all the obligations of American citizenship, including paying federal taxes and serving in all the nation's wars, including the War of 1812, during which the Capitol building, which then housed the Library of Congress, was burned, prompting construction of the current Library building with the state and territory seals. It is, therefore, without question that the District and its residents should receive equal treatment among the stained-glass windows that portray the history of the United States. D.C. residents deserve to have their history and American citizenship recognized. There is existing evidence that the seal of the District should have been depicted. The Members of Congress room in the Jefferson Building, which is not open to the public, has a painted depiction of the D.C. seal, along with state seals, on its ceiling. This precedent reinforces our request to be represented among the stained-glass windows in the Main Reading Room, which is open to the public. There is no reason why the D.C. seal cannot be added with the planned restoration of the stained-glass. The right time to add the seal of the District would be during the planned restoration. Congress already includes the District, or has corrected the omission of the District, when honoring the states. For example, the World War II Memorial includes a column representing the District, and D.C.'s Frederick Douglass statue now sits in the Capitol alongside statues from the 50 states. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 requires the armed services to display the District flag whenever the flags of the states are displayed. Legislation was also enacted to give D.C. a coin after it was omitted from legislation creating coins for the 50 states. We also successfully worked with the U.S. Postal Service to create a D.C. stamp, like the stamps for the 50 states, and worked with the National Park Service to add the D.C. flag alongside the state flags across from Union Station. It is long overdue to display the D.C. seal, along with the seals of the states, in the Main Reading Room of the Library of Congress. I urge support of this legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia National Guard Home Rule Act, a bill that would give the mayor of the District of Columbia authority to deploy the D.C. National Guard, after consultation with the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard, with the President retaining authority on federal matters. In local emergencies, including natural disasters and civil disturbances unrelated to national or homeland security, the mayor of the District should have the same authority that governors exercise over the National Guard in their states and territories. Each governor--including the governors of the three U.S. territories with Guards--has the authority to deploy the National Guard to protect his or her state or territory, just as local militia did historically. The National Guards in the 50 states and territories operate under dual federal and local jurisdiction. Yet only the President currently has the authority to deploy the D.C. National Guard for both national and local purposes. Today, by far the most likely need for the D.C. National Guard here would be for natural disasters, such as hurricanes and floods, and to restore order in the wake of civil disturbances. The mayor, who knows the city better than any federal official and who works closely with federal security officials, should be able to call on the D.C. National Guard for local natural disasters and civil disturbances, after consultation with the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard. The President should be focused on national matters, including homeland security, not local D.C. matters. Homeland security authority, with respect to the D.C. National Guard, would remain the sole province of the President, along with the power to federalize the D.C. National Guard for federal matters at will. It does no harm to give the mayor authority to deploy the Guard for civil disturbances and natural disasters. However, it could do significant harm to leave the mayor powerless to act quickly. If it makes sense that governors would have control over the deployment of their National Guards, it makes equal sense for the mayor of the District, with a population the size of a small state, to have the same authority. The mayor of the District, as chief executive, should have the authority to deploy the D.C. National Guard in instances that do not rise to the level of federal homeland security activities. My bill permits the mayor to deploy the D.C. National Guard only after consultation with the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard. The bill is another important step toward completing the transfer of full self-government powers to the District that Congress began with the passage of the Home Rule Act of 1973, when it delegated most of its authority over District matters to an elected mayor and Council. The bill follows that model. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 866) to provide a lactation room in public buildings.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 866.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of my bill, the Fairness For Breastfeeding Mothers Act of 2019, a bill that would require buildings that are either federally owned or leased to provide designated private and hygienic lactation spaces for nursing mothers. The House passed this bill by voice vote when I offered it last Congress. The House also passed this bill in the 114th Congress as an amendment to the Public Buildings Reform and Savings Act of 2016. I appreciate the prior support of my colleagues, and I hope they will join me today in support of this important legislation once again. For years, Federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have encouraged breastfeeding. The benefits are so great that the Affordable Care Act amended Federal law to require employers to provide a designated, non-bathroom space for returning employees to pump breast milk for their newborns, ensuring that new mothers would be able to continue the essential practice even after returning to work. My bill would extend this requirement to include not only employees, but visitors and guests to Federal facilities across the Nation. Actually, Federal facilities visited by millions of Americans and others should lead the way. My bill does not require the expenditure of Federal funds or require space to be mandated. It would simply allow visitors to Federal buildings to make use of spaces that are already available to Federal employees or to access similar spaces within those buildings. In Washington, D.C., alone, there are millions of tourists who visit Federal sites, such as the Lincoln Memorial and the Smithsonian Institution. Increasingly, families understand the unique benefits of breastfeeding as encouraged by Federal agencies and programs, and visitors to these buildings who have newborns and babies should have a private space to breastfeed or pump. The benefits of breastfeeding are well-documented. Breast milk contains antibodies and hormones that boost babies' immune systems. Studies have shown lower risks of asthma, diabetes, respiratory infections, and other diseases among breastfed babies. Breastfeeding also has benefits for nursing mothers, who, research has shown, have lower risks of diabetes and certain forms of cancer. Given the significant health benefits of breastfeeding for both baby and mother already recognized in Federal policy, my bill is a logical step to ensure that visitors to Federal sites have access to clean, hygienic, and private spaces to nurse or pump. It is also important to ensure that lactation spaces are accessible to individuals with disabilities. While the Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply to Federal buildings, the lactation spaces required by my bill would be subject to a similar law, the Architectural Barriers Act, which requires buildings and facilities that are designed, built, or altered with Federal dollars or leased by Federal agencies, to be accessible to individuals with disabilities whenever possible. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, we have had this act come up in a Republican House. It has now come up in a Democratic House. What more do we need in order for it to be clear that this is, shall we say, motherhood legislation and that the whole House is for it? Madam Speaker, I have no remaining speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 831) to direct the Secretary of Transportation to request nominations for and make determinations regarding roads to be designated under the national scenic byways program, and for other purposes.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 831.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The National Scenic Byways Program was created in 1991 in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act--ISTEA, as it was called--and, since that time, has helped designate and provide funding for 150 scenic roads across the country. In the consolidation of Federal highways programs in MAP-21, which was enacted in 2012, funding for a separate National Scenic Byways Program was eliminated; however, the authority of the Department of Transportation to continue to designate roads was retained. Unfortunately, the Department of Transportation has not designated any new scenic byways since the dedicated program was eliminated in 2012. Madam Speaker, this legislation will ensure that there is a process once again for States, Tribes, and Federal land management agencies to request designations for roads that meet the scenic byways criteria. I thank the sponsor of this legislation, Mr. Cicilline, who has supported efforts to preserve the scenic beauty of our country's natural and man-made environments as co-chair of the Congressional America the Beautiful Caucus for introducing this legislation, and I strongly support H.R. 831 and urge my colleagues to join in passing this legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), my good friend and the sponsor of this legislation.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, you see the bipartisan nature of this bill, and it doesn't require us to appropriate any funds, but we can imagine what States would do with this designation on their own. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.