Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Ensuring Successful Reentry Act, a bill to eliminate so-called ``subsistence fees.'' Federal law currently requires the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to impose a subsistence fee on the income of returning citizens living in residential reentry centers (RRCs), supposedly to promote financial responsibility by requiring RRC residents to pay a portion of their housing costs. The fee is currently 25 percent. However, many returning citizens living in these centers often work minimum wage jobs, so the loss of 25 percent of their paychecks is a significant hurdle to successful reentry, and it makes it extremely difficult for them to save money for rent, pay child support, or fines and fees associated with their conviction (such as restitution). Only last year, BOP eliminated the subsistence fee for returning citizens on home confinement, who cost BOP nothing for maintenance. Far from promoting financial responsibility, subsistence fees actually prevent returning citizens from meeting their financial obligations. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has already recognized how ``counterproductive'' subsistence fees are, both for returning citizens and BOP. In a November 2016 memo, then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates noted that BOP's ``process for collecting these subsistence fees is costly and administratively burdensome for both RRC's and [BOP],'' and called for DOJ to ``develop a plan to limit the use of counterproductive `subsistence' fees imposed on indigent residents.'' BOP can already waive subsistence fees in certain situations for residents of RRCs, but only a change in federal law can remove this unnecessary barrier to reentry. We should not be imposing additional burdens on returning citizens, setting them up to fail, especially those who are employed and working toward independence from the criminal justice system. Jobs and affordable housing are crucial components in ensuring successful reentry--charging subsistence fees is antithetical to this goal. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring the life and legacy of District of Columbia resident and my friend Walker Alexander Williams, Jr. Walker, who is 76, was honored this week at the Lincoln Theatre. Born on November 7, 1940, Walker Alexander Williams, Jr. took on a selfless life of service to others. After attending Boston University and earning a degree in communications, he went on to attend Seton Hall and Rutgers University's Graduate Schools of Business Administration. From there, he built an impressive career working with an array of non- governmental organizations on issues ranging from education to economic development. During this time, he developed an expertise in the area of African and Caribbean development. He had a remarkable understanding of the African and Caribbean diaspora and politics, and realized the importance of elevating their voices in Washington, advocating for them and advising international and U.S. government agencies. He went on to found Leadership Africa USA in 2006 and served as President and Founder of Education Africa USA, focusing on educational challenges in South Africa. Walker leaves behind his partner, Janice M. Smith; his brother, Kenneth Williams; his sisters Diane Harris and Elaine Bloom; children, Bryn Williams Meyer and Walker Williams III; and his grandchildren Max Meyer, Lashonna and Yahshua Williams. I ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring the life and legacy of Walker Alexander Williams, Jr., and remembering his selfless dedication to others.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Banning the Use of Electronic Cigarettes on Airplanes Act of 2017. The bill prohibits the use of electronic cigarettes and vaping devices on commercial airplanes by including use of these devices within the definition of smoking. Smoking tobacco products on commercial airplanes has been banned for years, but with the increase in use of electronic cigarettes and vaping devices in their place, it is necessary to update our laws to reflect this new nuisance and health risk on airplanes. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a final rule in March 2016 banning the use of these devices on airplanes, but Congress should make a permanent, statutory change to include the use of these devices within the definition of ``smoking.'' Last Congress, my bill received bipartisan support from the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and was added as an amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill, the Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act. The amendment was also included in the Senate's long-term FAA reauthorization bill. Electronic cigarette use has increased over the last decade with the increased education of the general public about the dangers and public health threats caused by traditional cigarettes to smokers and nonsmokers alike. For example, between 2010 and 2011, e-cigarette use among adults doubled. Researchers and public health experts have voiced concerns over the use of electronic cigarettes because there are still so many unknowns about the chemicals these devices can produce. The American Lung Association (ALA) has cited many concerns about the lack of regulation of e-cigarettes because they are being marketed to the public while the potential harm from secondhand e-cigarette emissions is unknown. ALA has identified two studies that show formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, benzene, tobacco-specific nitrosamines, and other harmful irritants coming from e-cigarette emissions. In addition, the temperature of an e-cigarette can affect how harmful the chemicals are, but with no configuration standards, it is too difficult to uniformly assess the health effects of smoking e-cigarettes. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a proposed rule in 2014 that would extend new regulatory authority to e-cigarettes by subjecting e-cigarettes to registration and product listing requirements, restrictions on marketing products prior to FDA review, and a prohibition on providing free samples as with traditional tobacco products. It has been over 25 years since legislation was passed banning smoking on domestic flights in the United States. In the 1960s, the U.S. Surgeon General identified smoking as a cause of increased mortality and by 1986, the U.S. Surgeon General had named secondhand smoke a serious health risk. The National Academy of Sciences, in its report ``The Airliner Cabin Environment: Air Quality and Safety,'' recommended a ban on smoking on all domestic commercial flights. The Association of Flight Attendants can be credited with urging the smoking ban due to the negative health impacts flights attendants suffered working in cramped, closed-off spaces when a third or more passengers smoked in-flight. Congress used this information to include an amendment authored by then-Representative Dick Durbin (D-IL) in the Federal Aviation Act that made domestic flights of two hours or less smoke-free. By 1990, this smoking ban was extended to all domestic flights of six hours or less, and, in 2000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act made all flights to and from the United States smoke-free. All of this was done even in the face of the strong tobacco industry's opposition because of the undeniable health impacts of cigarettes and cigarette smoke. Many flyers do not remember a time without ``No Smoking'' signs located throughout a commercial airplane. In 2016, DOT issued its final rule to prohibit the use of e- cigarettes on U.S. airplanes. Legislation is necessary to make this update applicable to all airlines, and permanent. Under current FAA policy, battery-powered electronic cigarettes, vaporizers, vape pens, atomizers, and electronic nicotine systems are prohibited in checked baggage, and the FAA recommends that such devices only be carried in the aircraft cabins because of safety issues. The current statutory smoking ban applies to the smoking of tobacco products on all scheduled passenger flights and on scheduled passenger flight segments on foreign air carriers in the U.S. and between the U.S. and foreign countries, unless a waiver is granted based on bilateral negotiations. The Banning the Use of Electronic Cigarettes on Airplanes Act of 2017 will amend the statutory definition of smoking in 49 U.S.C. 41706 to include the use of electronic cigarettes, defined as ``a device that delivers nicotine or other substances to a user of the device in the form of a vapor that is inhaled to simulate the experience of smoking.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating Jerri Evans and her company, Turning Natural, Inc., this year's D.C. Small Business of the Year. This unique honor is part of our annual Small Business Fair, which we are holding today at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center. This year, we are proud to honor Small Business of the Year Turning Natural, Inc., a juice bar located in the Southeast part of the city. Turning Natural has been a welcome fixture in the neighborhood for almost a decade. Growing up, Evans witnessed her family's difficulty accessing healthy foods. Neighborhoods where Evans grew up in Southeast were considered food deserts, and, sadly, many still are today. With the juice bar, Evans provides her neighbors a healthy alternative to fast food, carry-outs and corner stores. Today, she keeps things fresh with creative juice names like ``Green Latifah,'' ``Swizz Beets'' and ``Mi'Kale Jackson,'' and by adding a variety of new juice types to her menu, including the increasingly popular cold-press juices. Evans' mother, Annette Turner, founded Turning Natural after surviving a bout with Stage II breast cancer. Sadly, when the cancer returned in 2010, she lost that fight. Jerri continued the business and her mother's legacy, and, today, continues to run the company and to advocate for healthy living among Washingtonians. This is the 20th time we are hosting our Small Business Fair to highlight the importance of small businesses in the District. The Fair provides critical information, counseling and resources to aspiring and current D.C. business owners. Small businesses are an essential lifeline in our local economy, and the District thrives because of their success. I thank the Washington Convention Center for hosting us again this year; the workshop experts who are providing valuable information and assistance to small businesses; and, of course, all of the small businesses who participate this year. I ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating the D.C. Small Business of the Year, Turning Natural, Inc., as well as in celebrating our small businesses across the District. In the District and in districts around the country, we know the social, cultural and economic importance of small businesses.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the District of Columbia National Park Service Improvement Act, a bill that would clarify that D.C. has the authority to enter into cooperative management agreements (CMAs) with the National Park Service (NPS) to maintain and invest in NPS properties in the city. NPS is the steward for many of our country's most beautiful natural wonders, but they are uniquely responsible for most of the small, urban parks here in the District. Given NPS's limited budget and resources, we should be encouraging local jurisdictions to work collaboratively with NPS to make sure that our national parks are being cared for. States have already explored these opportunities, but my bill would remove any doubt that the District has the same authority as the states to enter into CMAs with NPS. The city already has plans to enter into a CMA with NPS to take over operational jurisdiction of Franklin Park, an NPS park in downtown D.C. that has seen better days. The city plans to work with the Downtown Business Improvement District to transform the park to its former glory by ensuring regular maintenance and providing amenities such as food, gardens, and other services. As the city's downtown core has grown to include more housing, businesses, and workers, the need for green space has also grown. The city's plans for Franklin Park are a model for what can be done when local jurisdictions get creative about protecting and improving our nation's parks. My bill is uncontroversial and simply clarifies that the District can provide financial support. to NPS in order to maintain their property. This is a win for the city, the federal government, and all those who live in or visit the District and enjoy our NPS parks. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), my good friend.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. I thank the Democratic and Republican leaders who introduced this resolution condemning the violence of the security detail at the Turkish Embassy here in the Nation's Capital. I am not surprised at the bipartisan nature of this resolution coming from the top of Congress about the right to protest peacefully in our country. This was an assault, after all, not only on the protesters, but on one of our most important American values: the right to assemble and use the First Amendment to protest. Mr. Speaker, we must persist because I do not recall a demonstration like this. It was witnessed by the chief of police himself, Peter Newsham, and he, himself, is an eyewitness who declared that these protesters were all peaceful. There were also videos of the nonviolent protesters being assaulted. Now, the United States and the protesters deserve an appropriate response from the Turkish Government. Instead, we received a farfetched shifting of blame from Turkey. That makes it all the more important because the shifting of the blame will lead some to believe that we are responsible for what happened. Actually, we need to protest in the strongest terms because it turns out that this is part of a pattern. A similar incident occurred about a half dozen years ago at the United Nations, same head of state, same thugs attacking peaceful protesters. Last year--just this past year--there was an attack on journalists outside of The Brookings Institution. So if we don't tell them it is time to stop when we have had the third attack, they will persist. That is for sure. We know who these security details are. They couldn't have gotten into the country accompanying a head of state without telling us who they are. Moreover, two of them were arrested, so we have their names. I have written the Secretary of State, Mr. Tillerson, to ask him to bar the reentry of these security personnel; to hold them if they are still here; and to request information on whether they are entitled to immunity, and if they are, to have this immunity waived. We will not let the Turkish thugs who took on our protesters unprovoked hide behind immunity. It can be waived if it is present. It should be waived. These security personnel should be charged and prosecuted under U.S. law. Imagine, we would have done precisely the same if some of our security had behaved in this fashion in Turkey. There will be no justice to the citizens exercising their First Amendment rights who were stomped, kicked, and seriously injured until they and our country are vindicated with an appropriate response from the Turkish Government. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, this has been painful not only for the protesters, it is painful for our country because Turkey is an ally. We have our differences with Turkey, but we are dependent on Turkey for security matters. If this had never happened before, perhaps we could say that Turkey just doesn't understand how we operate in this country. The fact that it was the third incident makes it particularly bothersome. Now, we are aware how sensitive this matter is. You cannot deal with a foreign adversary who happens to be an ally at the same time as if he were simply the enemy or our opponent. We have to understand the sensibilities of operating in the international sphere. But it is clear that Turkey doesn't understand that. I was particularly concerned that Mr. Erdogan was in his car the entire time. He could have gotten out of his car and called attention to his security detail. He could have asked a staff member to do the very same thing. Instead, he stayed in his car, got out after the security detail from the D.C. police department had calmed things, stood there and had nothing to say. If we let this third incident go by with no response or accept--or even seem to accept--the Turkish response, that will be a signal to keep it up. So I am so pleased that my good friend on the other side and I are in unison on this. I am particularly pleased that this was not a resolution introduced by me or by my good friend, that this resolution was introduced by top leaders on the Republican and the Democratic side. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the Democratic whip of the House.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring the R&B music group, the Dells. Mr. Verne Allison, the last surviving member of the Dells, was visiting Washington, D.C. over the last few days so I wanted to take this opportunity to recognize the group and their outstanding music. Originally from Chicago, Illinois, the Dells formed out of a group of young men still in high school: Marvin Junior, Verne Allison, Johnny Funches, Chuck Barksdale and Mickey and Lucius McGill. They originally called themselves the El-Rays, but changed their name to The Dells once they signed with Vee Jay Records in 1955. It was at this record company where they released their hit recording, ``Oh What a Night,'' which, at one point, finished right behind Elvis' ``Don't Be Cruel'' on the music charts. By the early 1960s, with their reach growing, the Dells were able to tour with big artists like Dinah Washington and Ray Charles, opening for them and exposing themselves to much bigger audiences. A soundtrack to the 1960s would not be complete without soulful melodies from groups like the Dells. At a time of constant political and social upheaval, a Washingtonian could turn on the radio and be serenaded with songs like the Dells' ``Give Your Baby a Standing Ovation'' and ``Stay in My Corner,'' a 1965 top 30 R&B hit. Decades passed and the Dells' music largely adapted. Members of the band remained largely stable. Their final work was the ``The Heart is a House for Love,'' part of a soundtrack for a movie in 1991. The Dells were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2004. Today, Verne Allison, one of the original members of the Dells, is the band's only surviving member. While Mr. Allison was in my district, he worked closely with DC Legendary Musicians. This organization works to protect the legacy of D.C. area musicians, past and present, and promote the music of artists from Washington around the globe. Although Mr. Allison and the Dells are from Chicago, DC Legendary Musicians recognizes the impact that music from artists like the Dells--who have performed locally at the Howard Theater, Constitution Hall and the Kennedy Center--have had on D.C. and its own music scene and history. Their work is crucial to ensuring this essential part of D.C. culture stays intact. I thank DC Legendary Musicians for their contributions to the District. I ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring Mr. Verne Allison and the Dells. We celebrate their harmonious and soulful music that is part of the rich American tapestry that is Rhythm and Blues. I am very pleased we can still listen to it today.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the D.C. students who submitted artwork for the annual D.C. Congressional Art Competition. I also seek recognition for the members of the committee who volunteered to make this event a success, as well as the competition jurors-- members of the community who judged the students' artwork. The competition will take place tomorrow, Saturday, June 3, 2017 at the Washington Center for Internships and Academic Seminars. The Congressional Art Competition has taken place in all Congressional districts since 1982 to encourage students interested in participating in the arts. This year, my office received 120 submissions from students in grades 8-12 from public, charter, and private schools across the District. The members of the D.C. Congressional Art Competition committee are from a variety of backgrounds in the community--academia, small business and local government. I am happy to recognize the following committee members for their tireless work in putting together this year's Congressional Art Competition: Thomas Atkins, is a former member of my staff who has continued to serve as an advisor each year for this competition. We depend on Mr. Atkins because of his background and know-how in supervising our art competition when he was on our staff. Yaida Ford, an attorney for Ford Law Pros P.C., has been a valued presence in our art competition in the past, and has come through yet again this year. She ensures that her firm can purchase valuable and useful gifts for the winners. Tiffani Gomez, of Blick Art Materials, helps run art drives for the competition and gets the word out to students who may not have heard about the competition from our office. She was particularly helpful in getting out the word on social media. Jennifer Littrell, Program Lead at Children's National Health System, is particularly helpful in getting the word out for the competition via creative flyers and other publications. Patricia O. Mitchell is a Senior Systems Developer for Amtrak. I have known Patricia for many years and she has done essential work for the committee. Ms. Mitchell helps the committee reach out to food vendors for the reception. Greg Scott is the Gallery & Exhibition Coordinator for the Children's National Health System. Our office partners with Children's National and they regularly hang the artwork of the student participants. Mr. Scott is also a curator and will be very helpful in the setup of the event. Zoma Wallace, Art Bank Coordinator for the D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities, helps with day-to-day logistics for this event. Her work and input is so valued that she also serves as a juror. Ms. Wallace held this dual role last year, and we are happy to have her on both teams again. The following individuals served as jurors--judging the students' artwork and selecting the winners. I am deeply grateful to have each of them, for bringing their unique perspectives and individual talents to the panel: Iwan Bagus is a photographer and professor at the University of the District of Columbia and American University. We are fortunate that Mr. Bagus has been serving on this competition's jury for many years and also helps secure prizes for the winners. Aaron Bryant, Mellon Curator of Photography at Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture, has been serving on the jury for the last two years. From his extensive work in the humanities, Mr. Bryant brings a wealth of knowledge as a judge this year. Sarah Muse, Creative Coordinator for the Smithsonian American Art Museum, is a new member of the jury for 2017. We are happy to have her expertise on our judging panel this year. Kevin Nunley is Vice-President of Student Affairs at The Washington Center. Our office enjoys a special partnership with The Washington Center, which has hosted the event for the last two years at their venue. Jack Rasmussen is Director and Curator of the American University Museum at the Katzen Arts Center, and is also a new member of the 2017 jury. We are fortunate to have his expertise and insight as a judge this year. Lissa Rosenthal-Yoffe is Executive Director at D.C. Arts and Humanities Education Collaborative and has been generous in serving on the jury for the last two years. I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the committee members, jurors, participants and winners in this year's Congressional Art Competition.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Virginia for yielding to me. You haven't heard any discussion of abuse of official time because there is no record of abuse of official time. My colleagues on the other side simply want to get rid of official time, as they have wanted to do for decades. A little background: Federal employees have no right to strike, as they do in the private sector. In return, though, the time-honored right to organize and represent employees in their official capacity on matters relating to the workplace has always been in place under Republicans and Democrats alike. Remember, there is also no requirement to join a union in the first place; yet unions must represent all workers, regardless of their membership or not. The bill on the House floor, H.R. 1293, is unnecessary. Official time reports are already required. This is a redundant bill. If my friend is worried that these reports haven't been timely, as he implied then he can do that administratively or do it in this bill. The reason he doesn't do it in this bill is this bill is a cover. It is a cover for two pending bills which are already out of committee. I expect them on the floor any minute now, although, notice the sequence. Mr. Speaker, this seemingly vanilla bill, is going to be followed by the real bills that my colleagues are after. They are parallel bills. They essentially eliminate official time to represent workers. Now, why is official time important? They are important for the operation of the Federal Government itself. And why is that? Because there are always going to be disputes and contention between management and labor. Official takes away time that would otherwise be wasted and allows the parties to go to the table and work matters out.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, these two bills are a frontal attack on official time, but they actually stab federal employees in the back. One bill would make it virtually impossible for union members to volunteer their time unless they wanted to give up parts of their retirement benefits. What kind of quid pro quo is that? What do you want to do next? Reduce pay if a union rep uses official time? The next bill designates employees who cannot represent other employees. This bill looks like something you would expect from countries where there is no right to organize. This bill reduces the amount of dues unions can collect, even though they are collecting dues on their own time and not official time. This is a brazen attempt to eliminate the fair-share fee, non-union workers pay for being represented equally with union members, and allow free riders to be served free of charge. This is the beginning of an out- and-out assault on the freedom of workers to organize.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me this time, and I am pleased to support this bipartisan bill, the Improving Support for Missing and Exploited Children Act. I support it because it does exactly what its title says. It fills the gaps in our prior legislation on missing and exploited children. We need to look at such legislation very often because of what we are learning about missing and exploited children. There are many parts of this bill I support, but I particularly support a provision that we didn't have nearly as much knowledge of during the passage of the last bill: to improve the protection of children in State care. These are often foster children or children without parents. These are the children who may be most susceptible to trafficking and other exploitation. I certainly would appreciate the efforts of the committee in making sure that provisions of my bill that, I believe, got to you too late, are included in the final House and Senate bill because they are entirely consistent with the bill on the floor today. They come from recent experience of the District of Columbia. The D.C. police began to do something, which I urge all of you to do, and that is to use social media to let people know when there are missing children. It unnerved residents of the District of Columbia until they recognized that the city didn't have any more missing children than any other jurisdiction. Still, I support what the District did in using social media. Still, we simply don't know enough. My provisions would have the government collect subsets of data that it does not collect today. For example, we found in the District that there were more missing girls of color than boys. We ought to have known that from national statistics. You don't know it because there are no national statistics on the subsets of children. My bill would collect and publish demographic characteristics that simply are not published today on race, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity. If you think of those categories, you will understand why these may be the children in particular need of protection. In addition, there is no current comprehensive count of missing children in the United States. So, we need more work on this bill. We need to break down to these subsets so that jurisdictions, like my own, will know where to focus when we are focusing on missing children. Again, I am pleased that the District turned out not to have any more missing children than the average jurisdiction, but I am also pleased that it got a rise out of people who never would have paid attention to this issue until the police department decided to go on social media. We want to make sure that we cover all of our children and that we do what this bill does. What are the gaps? Where do we need to fill in? Mr. Speaker, this is the first bill on missing children in a number of years. We must make sure no children are left behind.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Flood Prevention Act of 2017. The bill would amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) to include the nation's capital in the definition of ``coastal state.'' Our bill would correct an apparent oversight in the omission of the District of Columbia, and would make the District eligible to receive federal funding and provide oversight for federally issued permits/facilities/ actions that affect the coastal waters of the District. The District urgently needs the protection of the CZMA because of serious flood risks that currently affect both residents, businesses and federal assets, including the National Mall and the cluster of downtown federal agencies. In an effort to reduce coastal flood risk, Congress has authorized a number of programs to help states and territories respond to floods and mitigate risk through resiliency projects. Among these programs, the CZMA provides planning and technical services to assist states in protecting, restoring and developing coastal communities and resources. Once the federal government approves a state's coastal management plan, the state becomes eligible for grants. Federal actions must be consistent with the state plans and vice versa. Even though the District is located on two rivers and has suffered substantial coastal floods in the past, D.C. was omitted from the list of eligible states and territories in the CZMA. This oversight may have occurred because the CZMA was passed in 1972--before the District achieved home rule or had a Member of Congress. Under Section 304 of the CZMA, ``coastal state[s]'' include the states and the U.S. territories (Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands, and American Samoa). Absent from this definition is the District, even though the District, including the federal complex, is under a serious threat from rising sea levels. Because the territories are included in the definition of ``coastal states,'' it appears that D.C.'s omission is a mistake, which only Congress can correct. Scientists have predicted that the tides on the Atlantic Coast could rise two to four feet by the year 2100, causing property worth as much as $7 billion in the District to be routinely under threat by floodwaters. This damage not only includes private homes and businesses, but the National Mall, federal buildings, and three military bases located in the District. The Anacostia and Potomac rivers are both tidally influenced, showing tangible salt water effects (and fish) and are part of an ``intertidal-zone'' existing between high and low maritime tides. In addition, the Maryland and Virginia coastal zones each include the tidal Potomac River, with Maryland's zone ending at the District line. Because of these factors, the District should be eligible for CZMA grants just like the states and territories already listed in the CZMA. I urge support for this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill that would make a small but significant change to federal law by adding the Mayor of the District of Columbia to the list of named principals for whom the President can order the U.S. flag be flown at half-staff. Current law states that the President shall make this order ``upon the death of principal figures of the United States Government and the Governor of a State, territory, or possession, as a mark of respect to their memory.'' Surely the death of a cunent or former D.C. Mayor should qualify as a principal. My bill would add D.C. Mayors, who have many of the same responsibilities as state and territory governors, to the current list of officials. This bill is a continuation of our ``Free and Equal D.C.'' series to ensure fair recognition of the nearly 700,000 citizens of the District of Columbia. Congress already acknowledges that D.C. deserves a place among the states for certain honors, and this addition is not as great as others Congress has already recognized. We have already won congressional recognition of D.C. in situations where the city was overlooked while honoring the states. For example, our legislation ensured that the District of Columbia War Memorial honored only District residents who served in World War I and that D.C.'s Frederick Douglass statue sits in the Capitol alongside statues from 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. Legislation was also enacted to give D.C. a coin after it was omitted from legislation creating coins for the 50 states. Legislation was needed to require the armed services to display the District flag whenever the flags of the states are displayed. With this acknowledgement, it is not too much to ask Congress to add the Mayor to the list of principals who are recognized upon their deaths. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Pay Equity for All Act of 2017, a bill that will 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. Representatives Rosa Delauro, Jerrold Nadler, and Jackie Speier are original cosponsors of the bill. 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 out 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. Our bill will ensure that applicants' salaries are based on their skills and merit, not on a potentially problematic salary history, by assessing penalties against employers who 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 who violate these provisions. Although the wage gap has decreased for some women, it still persists for women and men of color with similar skill sets. There is much work to be done to address the wage gap for everyone, and our bill is just one step toward that goal. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring the service of Documented Original Tuskegee Airman (DOTA) Walter K. Robinson, Sr. Tomorrow, I will welcome Mr. Robinson and his family to my office to celebrate his extraordinary service. Walter K. Robinson, Sr. was born in Baltimore, Maryland in 1920, the second son of Dr. John C. Robinson and Mrs. Clara Denning Robinson. In 1941, while attending Howard University in Washington, D.C., he volunteered for the Army Air Corps. He was sent to Camp Lee in Virginia, Keesler Field in Biloxi, Mississippi, and finally to Tuskegee Army Air Base in Tuskegee, Alabama. He began training at Tuskegee Institute for Basic Ground School, and after three months, continued in Pre-Flight, Primary, Basic, and Advanced Flight. During Primary Training, he had an accident in which he severed his Achilles tendon and was hospitalized for a year, enduring six operations and extensive physical therapy. When he was eventually able to return to full duty, he completed training, and while there, World War II ended. On November 8, 1945, Mr. Robinson returned to civilian life, a few years after marrying his high school sweetheart, Edmonia Bailey. After his honorable discharge from the military, Mr. Robinson and his wife moved to Washington, D.C. in 1959. He worked for the U.S. Postal Service and retired after 35 years of service, rising through the ranks of the Post Office as Clerk, Station Manager and the second black Manager of Delivery and Collection for D.C. The Robinsons had one son, Walter K. Robinson, Jr. Sadly, Mr. Robinson's beloved wife, Edmonia Bailey Robinson, passed away in 2000, after 59 years of marriage. Today, Mr. Robinson still lives in Washington, D.C. and is a very active member of the East Coast Chapter of the Tuskegee Airmen (ECCTAI, Inc.). Members of ECCTAI and the Tuskegee Airmen were well-deserving of the Congressional Gold Medal they collectively received in March 2007. It is an honor to have a Tuskegee Airman still living in the District, and I very much look forward to meeting and welcoming him and his family to my office tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in honoring the service of Walter K. Robinson, Sr. and the extraordinary service and sacrifice also made by his brothers and sisters in World War II.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Federal Officials Residency Requirement Equality Act, a bill that would amend federal law to require certain federal officials who serve the District of Columbia to actually live within its boundaries. In nearly every other jurisdiction in the United States, federal district court judges, U.S. Attorneys, and U.S. Marshals are required by federal law to reside within the jurisdictions where they have been appointed--but these same officials appointed to serve the people of the District are not bound by these same requirements. Even in the territories that have such officials, the officials must live in those districts, other than the U.S. Attorney and U.S. Marshal appointed for the Northern Mariana Islands who at the same time are serving in the same capacity in another district. The only other exceptions exist for such officials appointed to the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of New York, which are the only districts that serve different parts of the same city. My bill would put D.C. on equal footing with almost every other jurisdiction by ensuring that our Marshals, judges, and U.S. Attorney live among the residents they have been appointed to represent. Clearly, the idea that these federal officials ought to live in the jurisdictions they serve is a significant one--which is why the residency requirement for other jurisdictions is enshrined in federal law. Yet, D.C. was exempt from this requirement based on the now- outdated notion that the District is too congested and small to house these appointed officials. The District is a vibrant and bustling city with a diverse populace who deserve direct engagement on the part of its federal judges, U.S. attorney, and Marshals. My bill recognizes the fact that D.C. deserves the same type of community involvement by these federal officials as nearly every jurisdiction. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Low-Wage Federal Contractor Back Pay Act of 2017, to grant back pay to federally contracted retail, food, custodial and security service workers who may be furloughed if there is a federal government shutdown this fiscal year. The bill would apply to all three branches of the federal government. The idea for the bill was brought to my attention by federally contracted service workers, some of whom work here on the Capitol grounds providing Members of Congress and congressional staff with daily services, in 2013 when the federal government shut down. Many federally contracted workers in federal agencies earn little more than the minimum wage with few, if any benefits, and while others are unionized with a little better wage, all are the lowest paid workers in the federal government and should not be punished because Congress fails to do its job and keep the government functioning. Congress has historically provided back pay to federal employees, who work in the same buildings as these low-wage service workers, furloughed during government shutdowns--but not low-wage contract workers. However, both groups of workers deserve to be made whole after these shutdowns. I recognize, of course, that contract workers are employees of contractors, but the distinction between federal workers and at least the lowest-paid service workers who serve the federal government and its employees and keep, for example, their premises 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 could least afford the loss of pay during a shutdown, and should not have to go to work every day with everyone else in their federal buildings likely receiving back pay except for them. The nation's capital is the high-profile home of the federal government's collusion with contractors that pay low wages through leases and contracts with federal agencies. At least this legislation would provide some parity to their low-wage federal contractor workers. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Missing Children's Assistance Amendment Act of 2017, along with Congressional Black Caucus Chair Cedric Richmond (D-LA), House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI), Congressional Caucus on Black Women and Girls Co-Chair Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Karen Bass (D-CA), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Joyce Beatty (D-OH), Andre Carson (D-IN), Maxine Waters (D-CA), John Lewis (D-GA), Robert Brady (D-PA), Frederica Wilson (D-FL), and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA). The bill would require the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to collect and publish broad demographic characteristics, including race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender identity, of missing children. Congress has long recognized that missing children are a national problem. In 2013, Congress required OJJDP to conduct national incidence studies of missing children every three years instead of periodically. Such a study is now underway. However, my bill would require OJJDP to collect, break down, and publish demographic characteristics, including subgroups, of these missing children. It is critical that the public know if there is a disproportionate number of missing children of color, particularly missing girls of color, which may be an underreported national problem. Experts need to first measure the incidences, and then study whether children have been trafficked, abducted, are running away, or are missing for other reasons, and make recommendations. The last national comprehensive study of missing children by OJJDP was based on a survey conducted in 1999, known as the National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART-2). Currently, OJJDP is conducting a new study, known as NISMART-3. However, there is no statutory requirement that the triennial study collect or publish demographic characteristics of missing children. For instance, while NISMART-2 published race and gender data, it did not publish any subgroups, such as the number of girls of color missing. It is more important than ever to have reliable statistics on missing children. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today is Equal Pay Day, which marks the number of additional days a woman must work to earn what a man earned by the end of last 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. The best case for a stronger and updated EPA occurred here 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 men. Had these 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 suit. Based on my own experience as the first woman to chair the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I again introduce the Fair Pay Act (FPA) 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 women 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 being paid according to gender and not according to the skill necessary to do the job. I introduce the FPA because 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 requires that if men and women are doing comparable work, they are to 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 sex. 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, like the EPA, will not tamper with the legal burden. Under the FPA, as under the EPA, the burden will 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 states 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 a 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.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the 46th anniversary of the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, D.C. (GLAA), a revered organization that has long been a leader in the struggle for equal rights for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) community. Since its founding in April 1971, GLAA has been a respected and tireless advocate not only for LGBTQ rights, but also for full and equal rights for the District of Columbia, and has been at the forefront of efforts to strengthen enforcement of the landmark D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977. One of GLAA's most significant achievements, on which it worked with coalition partners, D.C. elected officials, and District residents, was the enactment of the D.C. Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act, which allowed same-sex couples to marry in the District. GLAA also has been an outspoken advocate for LGBTQ youth and seniors; has stood up for the rights of LGBTQ consumers; has upheld the rights of transgender people, including equal treatment by police and access to culturally competent healthcare; has educated and rated local candidates on LGBTQ issues; and has built and nurtured coalitions with other constituencies to advance these causes and defend the District's autonomy. At GLAA's 46th anniversary reception on April 20, 2017, the following recipients of its 2017 Distinguished Service Awards will be recognized: Jose Gutierrez is an activist, historian, poet and leather enthusiast who resides in Washington D.C. and is originally from Reynosa, Mexico. His family immigrated to Atlanta, GA in the mid-1980s, where he launched his advocacy career working for AID Atlanta and co-founding Latinos en Accion, a Latino LGBTQ organization. Jose is recognized for his work on human rights and AIDS advocacy both locally and nationally. In 2000, he founded the Latino GLBT History Project, the oldest D.C. Latino LGBTQ organization and most recently co-founded the Rainbow History Project, DiCcion Queer and the Latino Leather. In 2007, Jose organized the first D.C. Latino Pride. Currently, Jose is pursuing his B.S. in psychology at the University Ana G. Mendez, and works at the Department of Homeland Security in the District. Jose is an active member of the D.C. Latino Caucus, LULAC LAMBDA, the OutWrite and the Latinx LGBTQ D.C. Center. Reverend Cedric A. Harmon is a native Midwesterner with Southern and New England influences--a surprise last child to older parents who shared with him the gift of experience and wisdom. He has a B.S. in media management from Emerson College, and has completed extensive graduate work at Wesley Seminary. Cedric's deep faith calls him to do the work of justice and equality and to equip others to do the same. He is also known for his writing and television appearances--again on human rights and social justice--and serves on several boards having to do with sexuality and religion. He served as pastor of a ``radically inclusive'' congregation in the District, and is currently Executive Director of Many Voices--a new nonprofit creating a Black Church movement for gay and transgender justice. Mara Keisling is the Executive Director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, the nation's leading social justice advocacy organization winning life-saving change for transgender people. Since founding NCTE in 2003, Mara has led organizational and coalition efforts that have won significant advances in transgender equality, including the inclusion of gender identity in the Employment Non- Discrimination Act, the first-ever congressional hearing on transgender issues, and countless federal administrative and state-level wins. As one of the nation's leading voices for transgender equality, Mara is regularly quoted in national and local print media and has appeared on major television networks. She was part of the first all-transgender television interview on Melissa Harris-Perry's show in 2012. Mara holds a B.A. from Pennsylvania State University, and did her graduate work in American Government at Harvard University. Reverend Barry W. Lynn is the retiring Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) after serving in that capacity for the last 25 years. GLAA has worked very productively with Rev. Lynn and his highly capable and efficient staff at AU in resisting the federally imposed school voucher program in D.C. These private schools are not accountable to D.C.'s elected officials and their students, staffs, and teachers may lack the protections of the D.C. Human Rights Act. We are also honoring Rev. Lynn for aggressively defending the civil rights of the LGBTQ community on a host of national issues. He has long championed marriage equality, fought against ``bathroom bills'' that demonize transgender men and women and legislative attempts to gut local and national civil rights protections in the guise of ``religious freedom.'' The AU has, with Rev. Lynn's direction, filed numerous amicus briefs in cases directly affecting the LGBTQ community. Few if any other activists have been more outspoken than Rev. Lynn in integrating the interests of the LGBTQ community with the whole range of church-state separation issues. I ask the House to join me in honoring the recipients of GLAA's 2017 Distinguished Service Award and in celebrating GLAA's 46 years of contributions to the LGBTQ community in the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for those cogent remarks. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Ms. NORTON. I thank my friend for her comments. Mr. Speaker, I was the chair, before I came to Congress, in another life, of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, dealing with job discrimination in our country. I was interested, in my own research on Judge Gorsuch to find that he has written more opinions in discrimination cases than other cases. Now, the Rocky Mountain States of the Tenth Circuit do not have large numbers of African Americans, but the way in which the Supreme Court has interpreted antidiscrimination laws doesn't, in fact, basically differ from one group. The EEOC also has jurisdiction over disability discrimination. For example, the Court has always indicated that anti-discrimination laws should be read broadly in order to capture discrimination. Whether we are talking about the antidiscrimination laws as they affect women or racial or ethnic minorities or religious minorities, the Supreme Court simply will not read these laws narrowly. But that is not how Judge Gorsuch has operated on the Tenth Circuit. He has given a cramped interpretation of the antidiscrimination laws, and yet it is interesting to note that, when there is a claim of discrimination based on religion, he gives a very broad interpretation. He is perhaps best known for his opinion in the so-called Hobby Lobby case. This is the case in which he found that a closely held corporation was within its rights when it refused to adopt the Affordable Health Care Act's mandate that women and men be granted contraceptive protection as a part of health insurance. Judge Gorsuch found that this was a violation of the rights of the closely held corporation, the first time there has been such a holding. It is very interesting also to note that right after that, there was a case called Little Sisters of the Poor. Now, the Little Sisters of the Poor, unlike the closely held corporation, is, in fact, a religious organization, and they too said they do not wish to have contraception be a part of any of the institutions that they govern. Remember, we had a religious organization there, not a closely held corporation. The Court found that, to accommodate both women and the religious scruples of the Little Sisters, the Little Sisters had only to acknowledge that they did not desire to enforce the contraceptive mandate, and then it would be taken away from them and would be done by a third party, by the government. That was allowed as a way to accommodate the Little Sisters. Judge Gorsuch opposed that and wrote an opposing opinion. So to see this difference in the way he treats discrimination, reading antidiscrimination statutes affecting minorities of every kind in a narrow fashion; when he finds religious discrimination by statute, he reads those statutes very broadly. His technical rulings are of statutes that the Supreme Court has broadly interpreted, would have made these statutes worthless. You simply cannot enforce antidiscrimination statutes by treating them as though they were technical statutes that, for example, govern financial dealings. And yet this nominee has brought that kind of interpretation of antidiscrimination statutes. I was shocked at his holding in Hwang v. Kansas State University, which illustrates what I am saying. There, a professor brought a case because her university had refused to follow the guidance of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She was entitled to a 6-month leave to accommodate her condition. This is a statute involving disability rights. She took that 6-month leave and asked to have it extended until a day certain, not indefinitely, to recover further from cancer and a bone marrow transplant. Now, the EEOC guidance said that an additional leave beyond 6 months was possible as an accommodation to an employee unless there was an undue hardship. There was no undue hardship. But this nominee, Judge Gorsuch, found that the ``6 months was more than enough to comply with the law in nearly every case''--yes, in nearly every case--but the EEOC guidance said that there obviously could be extensions. I can think of no case that would call for more of an extension than a professor who said: I will come back on a date certain, but I have a cancer diagnosis, and I have had a bone marrow transplant. I hope that that case would give some pause to anyone who hears about it. The nominee has been quite consistent in how he has ruled in the Tenth Circuit, which gives every reason to believe that he is going to carry that consistency to the Supreme Court. I was very interested to see how he ruled on a Planned Parenthood case where the Governor of Utah had seen these notorious false videos that purported to show the sale of fetal tissue. Now, those videos--every court that has considered those videos have found that they had nothing to do with Planned Parenthood and what it actually did. So this matter has been litigated in a number of circuits. It was litigated in the 10th Circuit in a case called Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. Herbert; and the 10th Circuit found, as the other circuits have, that these videos were not, in fact, associated with Planned Parenthood--the false videos that surfaced. Interestingly, the court, on rehearing, which Judge Gorsuch had sought, characterized his dissenting opinion as ``mischaracterization of this litigation and the panel opinion at several turns.'' Here again, we see Judge Gorsuch going out of his way to rule in a fashion that he sees as necessary to sustain his broad views of religious claims. I am trying to give you an overview of Judge Gorsuch's opinions in a number of different areas, and I am mystified by how he would reach the conclusions he has reached in discrimination cases. Here is one that is very revealing: A.F. ex rel Christine B. v. Espanola Public Schools, where a student was found by Judge Gorsuch not to be able to sue for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act because she had earlier settled a suit for violations of another act, the so-called IDEA Act. Well, she has a right under both laws. She would have obviously raised perhaps different claims, but his view was that she should not be in court. This closing of the courts must be taken seriously in evaluating Judge Gorsuch. Because if you can't get into court in the first place, particularly if you are a member of a minority group, or for the moment find yourself in the minority on a particular issue, then you are out of court before you are in court. You have lost before you cross the threshold. I can't imagine why Judge Gorsuch didn't allow a student to continue when she had, in frustration, left her school because of violations of her disability rights. That frustration, as far as he was concerned, closed the courthouse door to her. Why would we want to interpret discrimination laws in a fashion that you can't get into court to make your case? A particularly cruel case, Compass Environmental v. OSHRC, a case where Gorsuch wrote the dissent, involved a worker who was electrocuted and died as a result. The corporation had trained its workers. This worker happened to be hired after the training had taken place; therefore, was not aware of all of the safeguards. The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission found that the electrocution of the worker could have been avoided if the corporation, Compass Environmental, had provided the necessary training. So it cited Compass and it fined Compass. Gorsuch dissented. He found that the company had not violated the law. The company hadn't provided the requisite training. The man was electrocuted, and it is very instructive what Judge Gorsuch said: ``Administrative agencies enjoy remarkable powers in our legal order. Their interpretations of ambiguous statutes control even when everyone thinks Congress really meant something else.'' He didn't like the administrative ruling, so he dissented and would have ruled against the family of a man who was electrocuted. That is not a man I want on the Supreme Court. This is not a man who knows how to interpret the discrimination statutes which have always been interpreted broadly by the Federal courts. This is not a man who should sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), my good friend who is coanchoring this hour with me, who would like to say a few words.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to come to the floor this evening to coanchor the Congressional Black Caucus hour about the present nominee to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch. I am very pleased that my good friend from Texas, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, has agreed to coanchor this hour with me. Mr. Speaker, I am chair of the working group for the Congressional Black Caucus that looks at nominees for Federal courts. So, I have buried myself in the record of Neil Gorsuch and wrote the testimony that we submitted to the Senate. What I will do is speak for a few minutes generally about the nominee, and then I will go to my good friend from Texas. I am very pleased that another good friend, Mr. Don Payne, Jr., is here from the State of New Jersey, and we will hear from him as well. Now, just as the Congress has been polarized so has the court been polarized, if you look at the liberal and conservative blocks in that way. But, of course, since the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, there has been a 4-4 split. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is still a Member of the Court is not always a predictable conservative, though he tends to vote with the conservatives. What has happened in the Senate is entirely predictable, at least today. In an unprecedented move, the Senate refused to hear from or even meet the nominee of President Obama. There was almost a full year, yet the Senate refused to take up that nominee. What happened today was not payback. If you listened to the testimony, you would see that there are good reasons why the Senate Democrats today decided to filibuster Judge Gorsuch. I want to begin because I am speaking for the Congressional Black Caucus with his views as they affect African-Americans and, by definition, others who depend upon the antidiscrimination laws and the Constitution of the United States. There is more than enough in the record on race related matters from Judge Gorsuch's 10th Circuit service to oppose his nomination. But let me focus for a moment on his pre-court service, which seems to have predicted what he would do in the court of appeals. He was a principal deputy to the principal who had jurisdiction over the Civil Rights Division. We have to pay attention to the fact that the inspector general, during Judge Gorsuch's time in the Justice Department, found that the Civil Rights Division, where he had some oversight, had been politicized in order to stifle civil rights enforcement. As you might imagine, the Congressional Black Caucus had to pay attention to that finding by a neutral investigator. We also are very concerned about how Gorsuch is a Justice Department Official treated a Georgia election law. As we know, election laws from the South--of course, there has been a historic decision that has made the Voting Rights Act far less effective than it was--but certainly during most of the time of the Act, Southern states had to go through the Justice Department to see if the laws in southern States, that had kept African-Americans from voting for reasons of race, to see if newly enacted laws affecting voting rights, in fact, discriminated against African-Americans and others or not. A Georgia election law was found by the Civil Rights Division to be discriminatory. Judge Gorsuch was part of the team that overturned the Civil Rights Division. That was, of course, challenged in the courts. And the ruling of the Justice Department that pre-cleared the law--that said it was all right to go ahead with this law that the Civil Rights Division had found discriminated against Blacks--the court overturned that finding of the Justice Department. It used quite pregnant language. The District Court said that the Georgia election law was reminiscent of Jim Crow laws. Those words have special meaning in our history--and I speak not here about African- Americans alone. But if you have found yourself in the minority on any issue--it could be a First Amendment issue, it could be a criminal justice issue--you want a court that will protect your rights, not only the rights of the majority. But this nominee has shown a hostility to litigation in the courts that have been the primary ways we have vindicated constitutional rights and the rights of minorities of every kind. In a telling op-ed, this nominee, Mr. Gorsuch, said: ``American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda.'' What? What else was there? The majority had enforced laws against the minority--in this case, African-Americans. He conceded that Brown v. Board of Education the school desegregation decision. But he went on to say that liberals should ``kick their addiction'' to constitutional litigation. This is a man who wants to get on the Court whose most important mission is constitutional litigation. I submit to you that even the Justice who epitomized conservatism, Justice Scalia, never showed hostility coming to Court to vindicate the rights of people who felt themselves to be offended. So in that respect, I think it is clear that--and this is a very important respect--Judge Gorsuch is more conservative than Justice Scalia was on the Court. Nothing could be more concerning than a Justice who says: Look, the preferred way to vindicate your rights is the political process. Who would disagree with that? It is the failure of the political process that sends people to the court. It shows, it seems to me, little appreciation for the Bill of Rights itself. The entire Bill of Rights is about the rights of the minority. And again, the word ``minority'' means any of us could be in that minority at any given point. You could be in that minority when it comes to religious rights. You could be in that minority because of a search and seizure case. You could be in that minority because of a free speech case. And, yes, you could be in that minority because you are part of a classic minority group. That is why the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were added to the Bill of Rights. The Framers, of course, shared Gorsuch's preference for the political process. A Constitution is a, small D, democratic document. But they created a separation of powers government knowing full well that majoritarian democracy sometimes treads on the rights of minorities. That is why we have the Supreme Court of the United States which Mr. Gorsuch seeks a seat. Mr. Speaker, before I go on to discuss some cases, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. Payne), my good friend from New Jersey's 10th Congressional District.