Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Blacks In Government (BIG), which is celebrating its 50th anniversary this month. The theme of BIG's anniversary celebration is ``50 Years of Transformative Government Leadership. Navigating Change, Leading the Charge.''

BIG was founded in 1975 in the District of Columbia by a small group of Black employees at the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare to address discrimination against Black federal employees. Over time, BIG has expanded its mission to assist and advocate for Black employees in all levels of government. BIG promotes equality and equity in government employment and creates pathways for students interested in careers in government through its scholarship programs.

I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing BIG for its contributions over the last 50 years.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Salary History Question Prohibition Act of 2025, which would help reduce the gender and racial pay gap by prohibiting employers from asking job applicants for their salary history before making a job or salary offer. Even though many employers may not intentionally discriminate against applicants based on gender or race, setting pay based on salary history can reinforce the pay gap. Members of historically disadvantaged groups often start their careers with unfair and artificially low pay compared to their white male counterparts, and these disparities compound throughout their careers. The House passed this bill as part of the Paycheck Fairness Act in the 116th and 117th Congresses.

There is much work to do to end the pay gap. This bill represents a crucial step towards that goal. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this rule and the full-year continuing resolution. The CR is an act of fiscal sabotage against D.C. and is an abuse of power over a disenfranchised jurisdiction, the consequences be damned.

For the last 20 years, D.C. has been able to operate under the local budget enacted by D.C. for the next fiscal year for the duration of every CR, including full-year CRs and the first two fiscal year 2025 CRs. The CR under consideration does not allow D.C. to do so.

Instead, the CR effectively repeals the fiscal year 2025 local budget enacted by D.C., which D.C. has been operating under for the last 6 months, and it restores the fiscal year 2024 local budget enacted by D.C., which D.C. stopped operating under 6 months ago.

This unprecedented budget substitution will result in an immediate cut of more than $1 billion from D.C.'s $21 billion budget. This cut will likely force D.C. to immediately terminate programs and to lay off or furlough police officers, firefighters, other first responders, and teachers. This cut does not save the Federal Government any money because D.C.'s local budget consists entirely of locally raised revenue such as taxes and fees.

The CR also fails to exempt D.C. from a Federal Government shutdown in fiscal year 2026. Since the 2013 Federal government shutdown, Congress has exempted D.C. from Federal Government shutdowns because Congress recognized that shutting down a city of more than 700,000 people was harmful to the operations of both D.C. and the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a memorandum from D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser's office detailing the impact of this CR on D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, this CR is an act of fiscal sabotage against the District of Columbia and an abuse of Congress' power over disenfranchised D.C.

This CR will result in an immediate cut of more than $1 billion from D.C.'s $21 billion budget 6 months into D.C.'s fiscal year.

For the last 20 years, D.C. has been able to operate under the local budget enacted by D.C. for the next fiscal year for the duration of every CR. This CR does not allow D.C. to do so.

Instead, the CR effectively repeals the fiscal year 2025 local budget enacted by D.C., which D.C. has been operating under for 6 months, and restores the fiscal year 2024 local budget enacted by D.C., which D.C. stopped operating under 6 months ago.

This cut to D.C.'s local budget does not save the Federal Government any money because D.C.'s local budget consists entirely of locally raised revenue.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Salary Transparency Act, which would require employers to provide the salary range for jobs in advertisements and interviews and to existing employees.

Several states have enacted laws relating to salary range disclosure, and the Federal Government should follow their lead and make salary range disclosure a national requirement. Salary transparency is an important tool to combat the gender and race pay gap. Salary secrecy facilitates both intentional and unintentional pay discrimination and perpetuates the pay gap.

Studies have consistently shown that when women negotiate for their salaries, they negotiate for less than similarly situated men. Frequently, this is because the salary they request is a certain percentage higher than their current salary. Because women on average make less than men, this practice perpetuates the pay gap. The same is true for people of color, who earn less on average than their white counterparts. Requiring employers to disclose the salary range for a job will help address this harmful aspect of salary negotiations and lead to a reduction in the gender and race pay gap.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Conversion Act of 2025. This bill would require the United States, beginning on the date that the president certifies to Congress that all countries possessing nuclear weapons have begun the verifiable and irreversible elimination of such weapons under the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (Treaty), to redirect resources that are being used for nuclear weapons programs to be used for addressing the climate crisis and human and infrastructure needs, such as housing, health care and restoring the environment.

In 1993, District of Columbia peace activists were successful in getting a ballot initiative in D.C. passed that called for nuclear disarmament. Since then, I have introduced a bill each Congress based on that initiative, including this bill. In March 2019, the D.C. Council passed a ``Sense of the Council'' resolution urging the United States to approve the Treaty. These actions show that D.C. residents were early, prescient leaders on this important issue. It seems that the rest of the world is, thankfully, starting to catch up to D.C.

As the only Nation that has used nuclear weapons in war, and that still possesses one of the largest nuclear weapons arsenals, this bill would help the United States reestablish its moral leadership in the world.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Protecting Federal Agencies and Employees from Political Interference Act, which would prohibit the relocation outside of the National Capital Region (NCR) of the headquarters for any federal agency located in the NCR or any federal employee position with a duty station in the NCR. Last week, the Trump administration directed federal agencies to submit ``proposed relocations of agency bureaus and offices from Washington, DC and the National Capital Region to less-costly parts of the country.''

The first Trump administration relocated a few agencies outside the NCR, which harmed the operations of the agencies and deprived the federal government of the expertise of experienced federal employees. For example, in 2019, the U.S. Department of Agriculture relocated the Economic Research Service (ERS) and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture from the NCR to Kansas City. A 2022 Government Accountability Office report found that the relocation led to the agencies ``losing . . . institutional knowledge and critical expertise.'' As a former head of ERS said in 2021, ``The agencies have been decimated. Their ability to perform the functions they were created to perform--it doesn't exist anymore.''

Employees in the headquarters for the agencies located in the NCR perform the indispensable work of keeping Congress informed of agency activities. Congress cannot write laws or conduct oversight without the critical information provided by agencies.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Superior Court Jury Duty for Seniors Opt Out Act of 2025, which would allow individuals 70 years of age or older to opt out of jury service in D.C.'s local trial court, the Superior Court.

Most federal courts allow individuals 70 years of age or older to opt out of jury service, including the federal district court for D.C. A majority of states have similar provisions for their courts.

Under the D.C. Home Rule Act, the D.C. Council does not have authority to amend title 11 of the D.C. Code (relating to organization and jurisdiction of the local D.C. courts). This bill would amend title 11.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Activating National Parks in Cities Act, which would expand the mission of the National Park Service (NPS) to include active use of National Park System units in urban areas. This bill would address the unique needs of NPS neighborhood parks.

NPS's primary mission is to preserve spaces for the enjoyment of future generations. This noble mission was crafted for the purpose of wilderness preservation, allowing nature to remain untouched by time. However, this mission is ill-suited for the unique needs of NPS neighborhood parks. In addition to grand national parks, NPS also owns neighborhood parks in urban areas. For example, more than 20 percent of land in the District of Columbia consists of parkland, and NPS owns nearly 90 percent of it, over two-thirds of which consists of neighborhood parks, smaller than one acre. These parks could benefit from activation.

A report issued in 2023 by George Washington University's Sumner M. Redstone Global Center for Prevention and Wellness examined strategies to create a more equitable and activated park system in D.C. As the report notes, NPS parks in D.C. ``do not meet the needs of people who both live near and experience the park system as a part of their daily lives.''

This bill would expand the mission of NPS to include the promotion of active use of its parks in urban areas. Active use prioritizes

current enjoyment by people and improves quality of life, including playgrounds, pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly infrastructure, sports and recreation facilities, community events, programming and concessions. This expanded mission would only apply to parks in areas that have been defined and designated as ``urban'' in the most recent decennial census by the Secretary of Commerce and would not impact wilderness areas.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill that would make the District of Columbia and the territories expressly eligible for the wastewater infrastructure and trash-free water grants established by section 302 of the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act. These grants, respectively, fund the construction of improvements to reduce and remove plastic waste and post-consumer materials from wastewater, and support projects to reduce the quantity of solid waste in bodies of water.

The Save Our Seas 2.0 Act makes local governments expressly eligible for these two grants, but it does not make D.C. and the territories expressly eligible for them, even though D.C. and the territories, like local governments, conduct the activities contemplated by these grants.

In 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held that D.C. was not a local government for purposes of the post-consumer materials management infrastructure grants established by section 302 of the Save Our Seas Act 2.0. I am concerned that the EPA will hold that D.C. and the territories are not local governments for purposes of the wastewater infrastructure and trash-free water grants established by section 302 of the Save Our Seas Act 2.0. This bill would ensure that D.C. and the territories are expressly eligible for the wastewater infrastructure and trash-free water grants.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Equal Federal Funding for the District of Columbia Act, which would amend title 1 of the United States Code to deem the District of Columbia as both a state and political subdivision of a state (such as a city or county) for the purpose of eligibility for federal funding, unless otherwise provided in a statute. D.C. operates as the functional equivalent of a state, city and county, and D.C. residents pay all federal taxes. Therefore, D.C. deserves to be eligible for federal funding available to each level of government.

While federal statutes generally expressly treat D.C. as a state for federal funding--and most federal grants go to states--federal statutes that provide federal funding directly to political subdivisions are often silent on whether D.C. is to be treated as a political subdivision. In the absence of clear language in a statute, federal agencies are inconsistent in their treatment of D.C.'s eligibility for federal funding.

By amending title 1 of the U.S. Code to deem D.C. as both a state and political subdivision for federal funding, this bill would automatically correct imprecise treatment of D.C.'s eligibility for federal funding in existing and future statutes and remove discretion from federal agencies in their treatment of D.C.'s eligibility for federal funding.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the United States Colored Troops Congressional Gold Medal Act, which would award the Congressional Gold Medal to the African Americans who served with Union forces during the Civil War. Approximately 200,000 African American men served in the Union Army and 19,000 African American men served in the Union Navy. I am proud to present this overdue expression of our national appreciation for these remarkable individuals. Senator Cory Booker has introduced the companion bill.

Since the colonial era, African Americans have served the United States in times of war. While African American men served in the Navy since its establishment, there was resistance to enlisting them to take up arms for the Union Army at the start of the Civil War. It was not until January 1, 1863, when President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, that the Union Army was ordered to receive African American men. On May 22, 1863, the United States War Department issued General Order Number 143, which established the Bureau of Colored Troops for the recruitment and

organization of regiments of the Union Army composed of African American men, called the United States Colored Troops (USCT). Leaders such as Frederick Douglass encouraged African Americans to enlist to advance the cause of citizenship: ``Once let the [B]lack man get upon his person the brass letter, `U.S.', let him get an eagle on his button, and a musket on his shoulder and bullets in his pocket, there is no power on [E]arth that can deny that he has earned the right to citizenship,'' wrote Douglass.

African American sailors constituted a significant segment of the Union Navy, making up 20 percent of the Navy's total enlisted force. Although there were rank restrictions on African Americans in the Navy before the Civil War, this policy changed after the establishment of the USCT, when the Union Navy started to compete with the Union Army for enlistment of African Americans. Yet, in practice, most African Americans could not advance beyond the lowest ranks of ``boy'' and ``landsman.'' In the Union Army, the USCT fought at Milliken's Bend, Louisiana; in Petersburg, Virginia; and in Nashville, Tennessee, among other sites. The USCT at first were paid less, were given used uniforms and poor equipment and could never become officers. Many USCT were assigned as guards on fortifications throughout the Union, including the Defenses of Washington, which, by 1865, was one of the most heavily fortified cities in the world. During the Civil War, African American women were not allowed to formally enlist as soldiers or sailors, though they served as nurses, cooks, spies and scouts for the Union Army and the Union Navy.

For generations after the Civil War, the contributions of the African Americans who served with Union forces were excluded from historical memory. Not until Public Law No. 102-412, which I sponsored and which authorized the establishment of a memorial on federal land in the District of Columbia to honor African Americans who served with Union forces during the Civil War, were they officially commemorated. The African American Civil War Memorial features a bronze statue of soldiers, an African American sailor and family, and is surrounded by The Wall of Freedom, which lists the names of the members of the USCT.

Patriots and heroes who rose in service to a Nation that would not fully recognize them, the African Americans who served the Union during the Civil War deserve our recognition for their contributions to the grant of emancipation and citizenship for nearly four million enslaved people and to the preservation of the Union.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Words Matter for the District of Columbia Courts Act, which would remove the term ``retarded'' from Title 11 of the District of Columbia Code and replace it with more appropriate and respectful terms. Last Congress, the Senate passed this bill by unanimous consent. Senators Jerry Moran and Gary Peters are introducing the companion bill.

Removing the term from the law has bipartisan support. In 2010, Congress removed several instances of the term from federal law by passing Rosa's Law (P.L. 111-256). Last Congress, I joined Republican and Democratic colleagues in introducing the Words Matter Act, which would remove several more instances of the term from federal law.

The term is used three times in Title 11 of the D.C. Code, and, under the D.C. Home Rule Act, only Congress can amend Title 11 of the D.C. Code.

There was a time when the term was a clinical term, but in more recent years, it has become a slur used against people with intellectual disabilities. Words indisputably matter, and I know our country is better than keeping such language in our law.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, these are unprecedented and extraordinarily difficult times for our Federal employees. The Trump administration seems intent on dismantling much of the Federal Government in violation of the Constitution, Federal statutes, and Federal regulations.

The administration has relentlessly attacked Federal employees, subjecting them to chaos and fear. The administration has imposed a hiring freeze, offered deferred resignations, fired employees, put employees on leave, effectively reestablished schedule F, and ended telework and remote work.

The administration is not alone in attacking Federal employees. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, on which I serve, has held two hearings this Congress, and both were designed to demoralize Federal employees.

As I said at the first hearing, Federal employees deserve praise for their expertise, dedication, and service, not derision.

Let's be clear. What is motivating these actions? They are designed to get experts to quit the workforce.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Household Goods Shipping Consumer Protection Act. This bill would ensure that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has the tools to protect consumers from fraud in the interstate transportation of household goods. Last Congress, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure passed this bill by a vote of 62-2. Representative Mike Ezell is co-leading this bill with me. Senators Deb Fischer and Tammy Duckworth are introducing the companion bill.

Specifically, this bill would clarify that FMCSA has the authority to assess civil penalties against fraudulent actors that hold consumers' personal goods hostage, allow FMCSA to leverage states' enforcement of federal consumer protection laws related to the transportation of household goods and establish requirements to ensure that motor carriers, brokers and freight forwarders that seek registration are operating legitimate businesses.

FMCSA receives thousands of complaints every year from the victims of fraud related to the shipment of household goods. Fraudsters have launched moving companies with fake 5-star online reviews to draw in customers, intending to overcharge customers or to hold their personal goods hostage until an additional fee is paid. After receiving negative reviews, fraudsters open a new moving company under a new name and a new FMCSA license. FMCSA lacks the authority to prevent and punish these types of fraud.

In 2019, a Department of Transportation Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled that FMCSA lacks the authority to assess civil penalties for violations of commercial regulations, including unauthorized brokerage and failure to return household goods to consumers. This ruling reversed years of practice and enforcement by FMCSA. As a result of the ALJ's decision, FMCSA may not assess civil penalties for violations of commercial regulations. Instead, the Department of Justice must initiate an action in federal court, which limits enforcement action and leaves consumers to pay the price. This bill would clarify congressional intent and provide explicit authority for FMCSA to adjudicate and assess civil penalties for commercial regulations and registration requirements.

This bill would also provide explicit authority for FMCSA to withhold registration from any applicant that fails to provide a valid principal

place of business or disclose common ownership with any other registered entities at the time of registration. Scam household goods carriers, brokers and freight forwarders have registered with addresses where no legitimate operations take place, often designating their official address as a retail package store, parking lot or business address unrelated to the registered entity. Allowing FMCSA to validate this business information up front will help prevent future fraud and abuse in the truck freight sector.

This bill would also permit states to use Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program and High Priority Program funding to ensure compliance with federal regulations on household goods freight and consumer protection. It would also codify the existing practice of allowing states to retain the penalties and fines imposed in proceedings related to violations of household goods statutes and regulations. These provisions would support states in their efforts to protect consumers from predatory practices.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.