Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 543) to require the Federal Railroad Administration to provide appropriate congressional notice of comprehensive safety assessments conducted with respect to intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation.

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. 543.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, on the morning of September 29, 2016, a New Jersey Transit train failed to stop, overrode a bumping post at the end of its track, and struck a wall of the Hoboken Terminal in Hoboken, New Jersey. In the wake of this fatal accident, which killed a young mother and injured 110 passengers and crew members, it was made public that the Federal Railroad Administration had been conducting a so-called ``deep audit'' of New Jersey Transit, which was prompted by an increase in safety violations. This bill requires that the FRA provide appropriate congressional notice when the agency initiates and completes a comprehensive safety assessment of an intercity or commuter rail passenger system. It is important that Members of Congress are informed as soon as Federal safety assessments are underway so that we may work on ways to provide assistance and oversight for our districts' intercity or commuter passenger rail services and inform our constituents of any safety issues before accidents like what happened in Hoboken occur again. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires), the sponsor of this legislation.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, this bill, too, was considered in the Republican House. We are considering it here in the Democratic House. I certainly hope that the urgency of this bill is apparent. I have no further speakers other than the gentleman from New Jersey, who knows this issue perhaps best, 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. 66) to establish the Route 66 Centennial Commission, to direct the Secretary of Transportation to prepare a plan on the preservation needs of Route 66, and for other purposes.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 66.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 66. This bill establishes a Route 66 Centennial Commission to develop and plan a fitting celebration of the 100th anniversary of America's Mother Road, as it is called. U.S. Route 66 was established November 11, 1926. The 2,448-mile highway originally ran from Chicago, Illinois, to Los Angeles, California, and passed through Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona in between. A precursor of the interstate system, this route was born out of the need for greater connectivity in our Nation after the rise of automobile ownership. Disparate segments of roads and paths were woven into a cohesive highway that offered Americans unparalleled ease of mobility. The historic route has carried Americans of all stripes, from migrants during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s to curious road trippers following in the footsteps of Jack Kerouac. While Route 66 became largely obsolete after completion of the interstate system, it holds a unique place in our Nation's surface transportation history. The story of Route 66 serves as an important reminder as to why our interconnected system of roads is vital and why we can never devolve to a piecemeal approach to surface transportation policy. This bipartisan bill is led by Representative Davis, the ranking member of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee, and has bipartisan cosponsorship among Transportation and Infrastructure Committee members, including Representatives Napolitano and Lipinski, and I am proud to be a cosponsor as well. I support H.R. 66 and urge my colleagues join me in passing this legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), my good friend, who is a Democratic cosponsor of this bill.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I certainly associate myself with my colleague's remarks on this bill. Madam Speaker, I am accustomed to historic places in the District of Columbia, because I represent the Nation's Capital. But I love the notion of a historic road, to understand how we built our country. I particularly think it is appropriate for us to be considering this bill this year when we have to consider a new transportation bill. As we consider the movement from east to west, this bill reminds us of how we got there, and we can't let such historic places--in this case, a road--just float from our memory. We have to do all we can to keep a road like Route 66 alive, as we do here in the District of Columbia, to keep the monuments a part of American history. I certainly appreciate the opening remarks, as well, of our new ranking member, Mr. Rodney Davis. Our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has been the most bipartisan committee in the entire Congress, and with Mr. Davis as ranking member of the subcommittee, I anticipate that it will continue to be. Madam Speaker, I have no more speakers on my side, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Local Prosecutor Home Rule Act of 2019 to give District of Columbia residents another important element of the self-government enjoyed by all other American citizens, including those in the U.S. territories. The bill would establish a local prosecutor's office designated under local law to prosecute all local crimes in the District. Under federal law, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, a federal entity, is responsible for prosecuting most local crimes committed by adults here, which is the greater part of its caseload, in addition to prosecuting federal crimes. This bill is special because it effectuates a 2002 advisory referendum, approved by 82 percent of D.C. voters, to create a local prosecutor's office. There is no law enforcement issue of greater importance to D.C. residents on which they have less say than the prosecution of local crimes here. A U.S. Attorney has no business prosecuting the local crimes of a jurisdiction, an anachronism that is out of place in any American self-governing jurisdiction. In fact, the territories of the United States--Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands--all have local prosecutors to prosecute local crimes. The absence of a local D.C. prosecutor is one more anachronism from the pre-home rule days when D.C. had no local government. The goal of this bill is to give the District the same jurisdiction over the criminal justice matters that state, local and territorial jurisdictions justifiably regard as mandatory. Amending federal law to create a local prosecutor would be an important step toward our goal of achieving true self-government. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce 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. 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 breastmilk for their newborns, ensuring that new mothers would be able to continue this essential practice even after returning to work. My bill would extend this requirement to include not just employees, but visitors and guests to federal facilities across the nation. 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, 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--breastmilk contains antibodies and hormones that boost babies' immune systems, and studies have shown lower risks of asthma, diabetes, respiratory infections, and other diseases among breastfed babies. Moreover, breastfeeding also has benefits for nursing mothers, who, research has shown, have lower risks of diabetes and certain forms of cancer. Given the significant public health benefits of breastfeeding for both mother and baby, already recognized in federal policy, my bill is a logical next step to ensure 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. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which would provide access to designated lactation rooms for guests to federally owned or leased buildings.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the new chairman of our committee, for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, this tiny--I will call it modest--2.6 percent pay raise authorized by H.R. 790 does not begin to make up for the long overdue pay raise our Federal workers are due. It does not begin to make up for the puny raises--sometimes as low as 1 percent, sometimes no raise at all--that our Federal workers have had to bear, and it certainly does not make up for 35 days of no pay for the longest shutdown in American history. It is particularly unconscionable to follow the Trump shutdown with a Trump pay freeze. Every Member in this House represents Federal workers. Every Member should be on the floor speaking for them. For years, Congress recognized pay increase equity between civilian and military personnel. But perhaps with the disparagement of Federal workers by Republicans and Republican Presidents, and perhaps to save money, we no longer even try to bring together these two parts of our workforce. It is hard to justify bifurcation of the civilian from the military workforce today.

Ms. NORTON. For example, what about the many who work side by side such as the civil servants who guard our borders who are hardly different from the soldiers who do the same thing around the country? The 2.6 percent pay raise proposed here does not begin to make up for the 32 percent average difference between Federal and private-sector employees who do the same work according to the council that measures this work every year. But for now, after 35 days of no pay, now is the time to try to insinuate some fairness into pay for Federal workers with this modest 2 percent pay raise.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Paperwork Reduction Act to eliminate the wasteful congressional review process for legislation passed by the District of Columbia Council and to align longtime congressional practice and the law. The congressional review process for D.C. bills is almost entirely ignored by Congress, providing it no benefit, but imposes substantial costs (in time and money) on the District. Congress has almost always used the appropriations process, rather than the disapproval process, to block or nullify D.C. bills and entirely abandoned the congressional review process as its mechanism for nullifying D.C. bills 24 years ago, having only used it three times before then. Yet Congress still requires the D.C. Council to use Kafkaesque make-work procedures to comply with the abandoned congressional review process established by the D.C. Home Rule Act. Our bill would eliminate the congressional review process for bills passed by the D.C. Council. However, Congress would lose no authority it currently exercises because, even upon enactment of this bill, Congress would retain its authority under Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution to amend or overturn any D.C. laws at any time. The congressional review process (30 days for civil bills and 60 days for criminal bills) includes those days when either house of Congress is in session, delaying D.C. bills from becoming law, often for many months. The delay forces the D.C. Council to pass most bills several times, using a cumbersome and complicated process to ensure that the operations of this large and rapidly changing city continue uninterrupted, avoiding a lapse of a bill before it becomes final. The congressional calendar means that a 30-day period usually lasts a couple of months and often much longer because of congressional recesses. For example, the congressional review period for a bill that changed the word ``handicap'' to ``disability'' lasted nine months. The Council estimates that 50 to 65 percent of the bills it passes could be eliminated if the review process did not exist. To ensure that a bill does not lapse, the Council often must pass the same bill in three forms: emergency (in effect for 90 days), temporary (in effect for 225 days) and permanent. Moreover, the Council has to carefully track the days the House and Senate are in session for each D.C. bill it passes to avoid gaps and to determine when the bills have taken effect. The Council estimates that it could save 5,000 employee hours and 160,000 sheets of paper per two-year Council period if the review process were eliminated. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy addressed the issue of saving such resources by eliminating the amount of paperwork sent to Congress when he proposed a cut in the number of reports that federal agencies are required to submit to Congress. Our bill is a perfect candidate because it eliminates a paperwork process that repeats itself without interruption. My bill would do no more than align the Home Rule Act with congressional practice over the last 24 years. Of the more than 5,000 legislative acts transmitted to Congress since the Home Rule Act was passed in 1973, only three resolutions disapproving D.C. bills have been enacted (in 1979, 1981, and 1991) and two of those mistakenly involved federal interests--one in the Height Act and the other in the location of chanceries. Placing a congressional hold on more than 5,000 D.C. bills has not only proven unnecessary, but has imposed costs on the D.C. government, residents and businesses. District residents and businesses are also placed on hold because they have no certainty when D.C. bills, from taxes to regulations, will take effect, making it difficult to plan. It is particularly unfair to require the D.C. Council to engage in this unnecessary, labor-intensive and costly process. My bill would only eliminate the automatic hold placed on D.C. bills and the need for the D.C. Council to comply with a process initially created for the convenience of Congress, but that is now almost never used. This bill would promote efficiency and cost savings for Congress, the District and D.C. residents and businesses without reducing congressional oversight, and would carry out the policy stressed by Congress of eliminating needless paperwork and make-work redundancy. I urge my colleagues to support this good-government measure.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 24, the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019. Saturday marked the longest federal government shutdown in history. It is true that we have been able to get back pay for federal employees who were furloughed or who worked without pay for every shutdown in recent history. However, Congress has acted not out of the kindness of its heart with respect to workers who worked without pay; we acted because, under the Constitution, specifically the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments, people cannot be made to work without compensation, particularly if they are federal employees. That would be a constitutional violation, and Congress knows it, and that is why we provide back pay to those employees who are forced to work during a shutdown without pay. We must also protect those who were not allowed to work during the shutdown, but, nevertheless, still incurred all their normal living expenses. We cannot be sure that the necessary appropriations will be forthcoming, especially in a government where one party controls both the Presidency and the Senate. The Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019, guaranteeing back pay, is an essential safeguard that federal employees are due. At the same time, furloughed federal contract employees, who often preform the same jobs as federal employees, are not being paid. Therefore, I have introduced a bill that would grant back pay to low- wage federally contracted retail, food, custodial and security service workers who are furloughed during the current and any other federal government shutdown this fiscal year (fiscal year 2019). Polls have consistently shown that Americans oppose this shutdown and are anxious for the president and for Congress to get on with the essential tasks of governing. The Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 will operate as an IOU to federal employees who deserve no less, but, indeed, much more.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding, and I particularly thank him for his remarks concerning this bill. I am particularly pleased to rise in support of this bill as a former chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This bill strengthens the protections Federal employees enjoy under the antidiscrimination laws of our country. It reinforces the importance of this antidiscrimination provisions by requiring that the head of that program report directly to the agency head. It expands notification of findings of discrimination and any action that has been taken pursuant to those findings. Surely, we understand the importance of this section at a time when we have just recently passed the sexual harassment provisions, and, of course, we can see the deterrent effect of assuring any disciplinary action that has been taken is known to the public. Finally, the bill bars agreements that would keep employees from disclosing any kind of Federal violation, as well as fraud, waste, and abuse. The latter provision is normally called a whistleblower provision. Madam Speaker, I particularly appreciate that the chairman has brought this bill to the floor--I am sure it is noncontroversial--but he has brought it at a time when Federal employees are experiencing the longest shutdown in U.S. history. This bill cannot and does not purport to make up in any way for the effects of the shutdown. But this bill sends a message to Federal employees that they are particularly valued and, so far as I can tell, it sends it in a unanimous fashion, just as the shutdown should have a unanimous resolution. It happens that around 62,000 Federal employees live in my own district, because this is the Capital of the United States--the 62,000, I should add, who are furloughed or working with no pay. But I want to remind Members that each and every Member of this body has Federal employees who are at home desiring to work and are furloughed as I speak. Though I represent a large number, some Members from the far West States should know that they are among those who represent the largest number of Federal employees. That is how dependent they are far away from Washington on Federal employees. Madam Speaker, the President seems to have moved a step away from claiming dictatorial powers to commandeer Federal funds to open the government. That is probably because somebody drew to his attention the extraordinary spectrum of constitutional, legal, political, and financial issues that would be raised, not to mention a court suit that is probably being prepared, just in case, as I speak. But, Madam Speaker, I am coming to the floor as well to urge our committee--and the new Democratic majority of which I am a member--to use this crisis of Trump's making to carefully rethink the President's emergency powers, leaving him ample room to move in case of an actual emergency while giving Congress more latitude to contain executive excess.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, in the meantime, I want to lay before the House the easiest of compromises. When I was a tenured professor of law at Georgetown University Law School, I taught negotiations. We usually worked with a number of issues in a negotiation at the same time. However, the easiest compromise to reach is one that involves a number. The number the President clings to is $5 billion. I can think of endless ways--and I am sure every Member can--to compromise that number. So in the name of a mounting number of Americans who are beginning to feel the consequences of the shutdown, though they are not Federal employees--not to mention the Federal employees themselves--I am asking even for my side to make a more concerted effort to reach an agreeable number, even though the polls show that the American people are with the Democrats on this issue. As a suggestion, I ask that the Democrats appoint a subcommittee and that the administration do the same to sit down and hammer out an acceptable compromise. For more than two centuries now, we have operated under a separation- of-powers government to make tyrannical rule nearly impossible. Even Trump is hesitating to declare an emergency to get his border wall. That throws the ball in our camp, we who are Democrats who control this House. I ask that we accept it, use it, run with it, and settle this matter now. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the Low-Wage Federal Contractor Employee Back Pay Act to grant back pay to federally contracted retail, food, custodial and security service workers who are furloughed during the current and any other federal government shutdown this fiscal year (fiscal year 2019). This bill applies to all three branches of the federal government. After government shutdowns, federal workers have received back pay, but not federal contract workers, who often perform the same jobs as civil servants. While I believe that all federal employees and federal contract workers should receive back pay after a shutdown, we know that we cannot get Congress to make whole all who are hurt by a shutdown. Therefore, my bill focuses specifically on low-wage federal contract workers, some of whom work here on the Capitol Grounds providing Members of Congress and congressional staff with daily services, because these are the workers most likely to be irretrievably hurt by lost wages during a shutdown. Many federal contract workers earn little more than the minimum wage and receive few, if any, benefits. While some are unionized with a little better wage, all are the lowest-paid workers in the federal government and should not be penalized because Congress has failed to do its job to keep the government functioning. Congress, historically, has provided back pay to federal employees furloughed during government shutdowns, who often work in the same buildings as these low-wage contract workers, but not to low-wage contract workers. However, both groups of workers deserve to be made whole after shutdowns. I recognize, of course, that contract workers are employees of contractors, but the distinction between federal workers and, at least, the lowest-paid contract workers, who, for example, keep buildings clean, fails when it comes to a deliberate government shutdown. Unlike many other contractors, those who employ low-wage service workers have little latitude to help make up for lost wages. Low-wage, federally contracted service workers can least afford the loss of pay during a shutdown and should not have to go without back pay while everyone else in their federal buildings receives back pay. The nation's capital is the high-profile home of the federal government's complicity with contractors who pay low wages through leases and contracts with federal agencies. At least this legislation would provide some parity to their low-wage federal contract workers. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the National Commission to Combat Sexual Harassment Act to establish a national commission to examine and combat sexual harassment in the workplace. I have modeled this bill on legislation Congress has passed to address other national problems considered to be serious, such as gambling. The almost daily exposure of allegations of sexual harassment, many not denied, more than qualifies sexual harassment for national attention and priority. This bill would create a national commission to focus on sexual harassment in major industries and workplaces throughout the United States. Congress recently adopted a bill that addresses harassment in the congressional workplace. It requires Members of the House and Senate to be personally liable for settlements and awards resulting from harassment and retaliation claims, removes the mandatory counseling, mediation and ``cooling off' periods for accusers that is currently required, mandates publicly reporting awards and settlements and covers unpaid staff as well. This is a step in the right direction beginning here in the Congress. However, nothing equivalent has been done for sexual harassment that affects the American people. We have largely neglected our own constituents, despite the increasing number of troubling reports in the news of sexual harassment claims. A national commission would assure the American people that Congress takes sexual harassment affecting them--the typical worker--seriously, beyond the high-profile examples, such as allegations against Harvey Weinstein and the Congress itself, that have garnered the headlines. Most importantly, the commission would hear from a cross section of the public--from office and factory workers to retail and food service employees--whose experiences with sexual harassment have received almost no attention. The commission could travel or invite witnesses to Washington from throughout the country to recommend changes in laws or regulations and best practices for preventing, training, investigating, responding to and penalizing sexual harassment in the private and public sectors. Our constituents expect Congress, which represents every sector, to take on the national problem of sexual harassment, which we now know has infected every major sector of the economy, including private and public (federal, state and local) workplaces. A national commission could help reach and reduce sexual harassment, a form of gender discrimination, where the average woman and man works. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Low-Wage. Federal Contractor Employee Back Pay Act to grant back pay to federally contracted retail, food, custodial and security service workers who are furloughed during a federal government shutdown this fiscal year (fiscal year 2019). This bill applies to all three branches of the federal government. After the 2013 government shutdown, federal workers received back pay, but not federal contract workers. While I believe that all federal employees and federal contract workers should receive back pay after a shutdown, we know that we cannot get Congress to make whole all who are hurt by a shutdown. My bill focuses specifically on low-wage federal contract workers, some of whom work here on the Capitol grounds providing Members of Congress and congressional staff with daily services, because these are the workers most likely to be irretrievably hurt by lost wages during a shutdown. Many federal contract workers earn little more than the minimum wage and receive few, if any, benefits. While some are unionized with a little better wage, all are the lowest-paid workers in the federal government and should not be penalized because Congress has failed to do its job to keep the government functioning. Congress, historically, has provided back pay to federal employees, who often work in the same buildings as these low-wage contract workers, furloughed during government shutdowns--but not to low-wage contract workers. However, both groups of workers deserve to be made whole after shutdowns. I recognize, of course, that contract workers are employees of contractors, but the distinction between federal workers and, at least, the lowest-paid contract workers, who, for example, keep buildings clean, fails when it comes to a deliberate government shutdown. Unlike many other contractors, those who employ low-wage service workers have little latitude to help make up for lost wages. Low-wage, federally contracted service workers can least afford the loss of pay during a shutdown and should not have to go without pay while everyone else in their federal buildings likely receives back pay. The nation's capital is the high-profile home of the federal government's complicity with contractors who pay low wages through leases and contracts with federal agencies. At least this legislation would provide some parity to their low-wage federal contract workers. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Representative Hurd, for his leadership in introducing this commonsense legislation. The bill before us today includes a number of different measures. The bill includes a measure originally introduced by Senator McCaskill to deal with information technology threats to the Federal acquisition supply chain. The bill would address the serious cybersecurity risks that recently came to light after the discovery of Kaspersky products had been installed on many government computers. The bill would establish the Federal Acquisition Security Council to facilitate information sharing among Federal agencies regarding supply chain risks when purchasing information technology products and create procedures for evaluating such risks. The bill would give agencies the authority to mitigate supply chain IT risks and authorizes the Council to recommend excluding suppliers, if warranted. The bill also would establish a judicial review process and reporting requirements to ensure fairness and accountability if companies are excluded in the future. In addition, the bill includes several provisions to improve cybersecurity at the Department of Homeland Security, one which was originally authored by Senator Hassan of New Hampshire. It would create a pilot program through which the Department would be authorized to provide a financial reward to those who legitimately come forward to report vulnerabilities on DHS websites and software to prevent exploitation by cyber terrorists, State actors, and criminal organizations. So-called white hat hackers are an enormous pool of talent that the Federal Government has largely failed to leverage. The bill would also require DHS to put in place policies to ensure that civic-minded hackers can identify and report bugs found on the Department's information systems without breaking the law. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the SECURE Technology Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend especially for his work on this bill and for his friendship and for our continuing work together. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.