Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Courts Judicial Vacancy Reduction Act, which would expedite the appointment of local D.C. judges. Senator Chris Van Hollen is introducing the companion bill.

The longstanding judicial vacancy crisis in the local D.C. courts has existed regardless of which party controls the presidency and the Senate because the president and the Senate are, understandably, more focused on nominees to the federal courts and the executive branch than to the local D.C. courts. The sole purpose of this bill is to protect public safety and promote justice by ending the judicial vacancy crisis in the local D.C. courts, which delays the resolution of criminal and civil cases. This bill has nothing to do with D.C. statehood or home rule. Although D.C. will control the local D.C. courts when it becomes a state and Congress can--and should--give D.C. control over the local D.C. courts now, this bill would not give D.C. any new authority over the local D.C. courts.

Under the D.C. Home Rule Act, D.C. has no control over the organization or jurisdiction of the local D.C. courts, including the nomination and appointment of judges. A seven-member commission, which is comprised of federal, D.C. and private-sector appointees, submits to the president a list of three persons for each vacancy on the local D.C. courts. The president must nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint one person from the list. If the president fails to nominate one of the persons from the list within 60 days, the commission must nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint one of the persons from the list.

This bill would not change the role of the president or the commission in the appointment of local D.C. judges. Instead, it would apply the current congressional review process for bills enacted by D.C. to the appointment of local D.C. judges. Upon nomination, local D.C. judges would be appointed after the expiration of a 30-day congressional review period, unless a resolution disapproving of the appointment was enacted into law during the period.

Local D.C. judges are non-Article III judges. The Constitution only requires Senate approval of Article III judges--that is, judges on the federal district courts, the federal appeals courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. Congress has the discretion to decide how non-Article III judges will be appointed, and it has chosen to subject some non- Article III judges to Senate approval, but not others. For example, Congress has not given itself any role in the appointment of bankruptcy or administrative law judges. This bill would strike a middle ground. Congress would retain authority to block the appointment of local D.C. judges, but it would only have a limited period to do so.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the National Commission to Combat Workplace Sexual Harassment Act, which would establish a national commission to combat sexual harassment in the workplace. This bill is modeled on bills Congress has passed to establish commissions to address other national problems. Specifically, this bill would establish a commission to carry out a comprehensive investigation and study of sexual harassment in the workplace, including recommending changes in laws and best practices to prevent, investigate, respond to and penalize sexual harassment.

Our constituents expect Congress to address the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace. The commission would hear from a cross section of workers--from office and factory workers to retail and food service workers. A national commission could help reduce sexual harassment in the workplace.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Rock Creek National Park Act of 2026, which would redesignate the United States- owned Rock Creek Park in the District of Columbia as ``Rock Creek National Park.'' Redesignating this park will highlight its significance to the Nation. Rock Creek Park is already a ``national'' park, as it was established by Congress in 1890 ``for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the United States.''

Rock Creek Park was the first federally managed urban park and the third federal park ever created, after Yellowstone and Sequoia. Rock Creek Park was designed to preserve animals, timber, forestry and other interests in the park, and to ensure that its natural state is maintained as much as possible, not only for D.C. residents, but for all Americans. The park also preserves the ancient history of the land, as it was used for temporary settlements and as a quarry for weapons and tools by Native Americans from 7000 BCE until the 1600s.

Rock Creek Park offers residents of D.C., Maryland and Virginia, as well as tourists, an escape from our increasingly urban environment. Residents and tourists alike enjoy many activities in the park's 2,000 acres, including hiking and biking, horseback riding, picnicking, tennis and other recreational activities in some of the open fields. Our residents have expressed their appreciation by volunteering to clean up and maintain the park.

In 1918, landscape architects John Charles Olmstead and Frederick Law Olmstead, Jr. wrote of Rock Creek Park, ``No matter how perfect the scenery of the park may be or may become, no matter how high its potential value, that value remains potential except insofar as it is enjoyed by large and ever larger numbers of people, poor and rich alike.'' Redesignating Rock Creek Park as Rock Creek National Park will help recognize the national status of this remarkable resource in our Nation's capital.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the No Fencing at the United States Supreme Court Act, which would prohibit the installation of permanent fencing at the U.S. Supreme Court. Since 2021, I have also introduced a bill that would prohibit the installation of permanent fencing at the U.S. Capitol complex.

After the Supreme Court's draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, Women's Health was leaked in May 2022, the Supreme Court installed temporary anti-climb fencing around its grounds, which remained in place until late August 2022. While the Supreme Court has not announced plans to install permanent fencing, temporary security measures often become permanent.

While I understand the importance of protecting the Supreme Court building, Supreme Court Justices and Supreme Court employees, we can and must maintain our commitment to security without sacrificing public access by using the least restrictive means necessary to address security.

Permanent fencing would send an un-American message to the Nation and the world by transforming our democracy from one that is accessible and of the people to one that is exclusive and fearful of its own citizens. The Supreme Court has long welcomed First Amendment demonstrations without becoming a fortress.

Public property should be open to the public. The distance between government and the people has grown, with trust in government, including the Supreme Court, at an all-time low. We should not increase that distance by placing intimidating barriers between public servants and the people they serve. There are more effective, less obtrusive security solutions than archaic fencing.

Moreover, the Supreme Court is in a residential neighborhood in the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court grounds are widely used by both Washington, D.C. residents and visitors. Permanent fencing would block that use.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Federal Employee Short-Term Disability Insurance Act of 2026, which would make short- term disability insurance available to federal employees. Employees would be responsible for 100 percent of the premiums and would receive benefits for up to one year. Insurance companies would be prohibited from excluding federal employees, or charging them higher premiums, based on preexisting conditions. Many privatesector employers make available disability insurance to their employees.

I began examining how we could provide federal employees with short- term disability insurance at group rates and with guaranteed coverage after learning that many of them buy such insurance in the individual market, which can have high premiums and exclude those with preexisting conditions. Although federal employees have good health insurance, health insurance benefits do not replace lost income. Moreover, while federal employees may have available sick or annual leave, they may not have enough such leave to pay the bills if they cannot work for an extended period, such as following surgery. Although the federal government provides disability benefits to federal employees who become permanently disabled, federal employees do not qualify for these benefits until they have worked for the federal government for at least 18 months. The Office of Personnel Management would contract with insurance companies to provide short-term disability insurance.

According to the Social Security Administration, a 20-year-old worker has a one-in-four chance of becoming disabled by retirement age. The majority of disabilities are not caused by major accidents, but by injuries or illnesses, according to the Council for Disability Awareness.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Fair Pay Act of 2026. This bill would require that if men and women are doing comparable work, they must be paid comparable wages. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (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 as much as men.

As the first woman to chair the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where I enforced the EPA, I introduce this bill on behalf of the average female worker, who is often first steered to, and then locked into, jobs with wages that are deeply influenced by the gender of individuals who have traditionally held such jobs. The pay disparity most women face today stems mainly from the segregation of women and men in different jobs and women in female-dominated jobs being paid systematically less. For example, if a woman is an emergency services operator, a female-dominated profession, she should not be paid less than a fire dispatcher, a male-dominated profession, simply because each of these jobs has been dominated by one gender. We need more aggressive strategies to break through the societal barriers present throughout history, as well as employer-steering based on gender, which is as old as paid employment itself.

What may be the best case for a stronger and updated EPA occurred in Congress in 2003, when female custodians in the House and Senate won an EPA case after showing that female employees were paid a dollar less per hour for doing the same or similar work as male employees. Had those women not been represented by their union, they would have had an almost impossible task in using the rules for bringing and sustaining an EPA class action lawsuit.

This bill would not change the legal burden. Under this bill, as under the EPA, the burden would be on the plaintiff to prove discrimination. The plaintiff must show that the reason for the disparate treatment is gender discrimination, not legitimate market factors. Remedies to achieve comparable pay for men and women are not radical or unprecedented. State governments, in red and blue states alike, have shown that it is possible to eliminate the part of the pay gap that is due to job-steering. Many state governments have adjusted wages for female-dominated professions, raising pay for teachers, nurses, clerical workers, librarians and other female-dominated jobs that paid less than comparable male-dominated jobs. Minnesota, for example, implemented a pay equity plan when it found that traditionally female jobs paid 20 percent less than comparable traditionally male jobs. There may well be some portion of the gender wage gap that is traceable to market factors, but 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.

Unequal pay has been built into the way women have been treated since Adam and Eve. To dislodge such deep-seated and pervasive treatment, we must go to the source, the traditionally female occupations, where pay is linked with gender and always has been.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Thomas Atkins, who served as a dedicated member of my staff for almost 20 years, where he worked tirelessly to advance my agenda for all residents of the District of Columbia.

Thomas has an extensive political background, having served as the National Volunteer Coordinator on the Jackson for President Campaign '84 and as a Political Director with the Campaign for Military Service. He also served as a leader in the environmental movement and the peace movement and has worked for justice on important political issues. He has made a positive impact on D.C. and the world.

As his colleagues will attest, Thomas works with commitment and passion. In my office, his deep dedication to the arts and education were invaluable when he served as the Coordinator of the D.C. Congressional Art Competition Committee. His leadership, enthusiasm and commitment ensured successful competitions, which brought together locally, nationally and internationally renowned educators and artists to serve as committee members and jurors. Through his leadership, the committee was able to offer mentorship to aspiring young artists and facilitate scholarships to esteemed institutions like the Savannah College of Art and Design (Savannah, Georgia) and the Corcoran School of the Arts & Design (Washington, D.C.). The committee also hosted grand receptions and student art exhibits at prestigious venues, including the Smithsonian Institution, the National Building Museum, the Corcoran Gallery of Art, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and notable galleries throughout D.C.

Thomas has held several professional roles. He worked in the entertainment industry, where he served as the Personal Representative of Hal Jackson, a founder of Inner City Broadcasting Corporation (ICBC), and his daughter Jane Jackson Harley, Talent Coordinator of the Apollo Theater and the Founder of Kemit Productions in New York City. He is an avid art collector and has traveled extensively around the world. His collection, the TERA Gallery, has been exhibited in the United States and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to recognize Thomas Atkins for his service and dedication. We all wish him the best in his well-deserved retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Veterans Legal Support Act of 2026, which would allow the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide support to law school clinical programs that provide pro bono legal and support services to veterans, including assistance with disability claims and foreclosures. There are at least 22 law schools that have clinics devoted to veterans' legal needs, including the William & Mary Law School Veterans Benefits Clinic, which was the first recipient of a ``best practice'' certification from the VA. There are many other law schools, such as the University of the District of Columbia's David A. Clarke School of Law, that are interested in starting their own VA-certified clinics. More needs to be done to sustain and increase the number of these programs.

I was a tenured professor at the Georgetown University Law Center and continued to teach a seminar there after being elected to Congress. I saw the expert assistance that clinical programs provide their clients.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, a concrete measure that would assist our veterans, who put their lives on the line for this country.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Paul Laurence Dunbar Commemorative Coin Act, which would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue coins in honor of Paul Laurence Dunbar. This bill would recognize one of the first influential African American poets in American literature and benefit the Dunbar Alumni Federation, the alumni association for the Paul Laurence Dunbar Senior High School in the District of Columbia, which was the first public high school for African Americans in the United States. I am a proud graduate of Dunbar, a storied African American high school.

Paul Laurence Dunbar was born on June 27, 1872, to formerly enslaved parents, and went on to pen such classics as Majors and Minors and Lyrics of Lowly Life. He also wrote the lyrics for In Dahomey, the first all-African American musical produced on Broadway. By the late 1890s, Dunbar had become a prominent author, having had his poems published in major national newspapers, including The New York Times. Dunbar died on February 9, 1906, at age 33.

Paul Laurence Dunbar Senior High School was established in 1870 as the Preparatory High School for Colored Youth. It was the first college preparatory high school for African Americans in the United States. The school was renamed for Dunbar in 1916. The Dunbar Alumni Federation was organized in 2002 to provide scholarships and other financial support to students and graduates of Paul Laurence Dunbar Senior High School. The Dunbar Alumni Federation has alumni from more than 35 graduating classes, and supports the school through its scholarship efforts, community activities and other endeavors. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to mint 50,000 five-dollar coins, 400,000 one-dollar coins and 750,000 half-dollar coins, with a surcharge on each coin. The surcharges would benefit the scholarships and similar activities of the Dunbar Alumni Federation.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Ensuring Child Health Coverage Compensation in Divorce Act of 2026. This bill would require all health insurers to directly reimburse a custodial parent for any out-of-pocket medical expenses for a child incurred by such parent if a court directs a noncustodial parent (including a stepparent) to provide health insurance for the child.

In a divorce, one parent is typically court-ordered to provide health insurance for a child. However, the other parent may pay for out-of- pocket medical expenses for the child that are reimbursable by the insurer. Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, group health insurers are required to directly reimburse a parent who pays for reimbursable out-of-pocket medical expenses when the other parent has been court-ordered to provide health insurance for a child. However, other health insurers are not required to do so. This bill would require all health insurers to do so.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill. I include in the Record letters opposing this bill from the District of Columbia Mayor and every member of the D.C. Council.

September 10, 2025.

Hon. James Comer,

Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Robert Garcia,

Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Garcia: As Mayor and

Chief Executive Officer of the District of Columbia, I am

proud of the work we have accomplished to invest in our

people, strengthen our neighborhoods, and drive down crime.

Building on this progress, my Administration established the

Safe and Beautiful Emergency Operations Center to coordinate

public safety and beautification efforts as the presidential

emergency declaration ends. This structure ensures that DC

will remain proactive--bringing together local and federal

partners to sustain momentum on reducing crime and improving

quality of life for every resident.

We have worked collaboratively with this Committee on

shared priorities, including public safety, the federal

Return to Work, implementing a DC budget Fiscal Year 2025 fix

(which is still pending in the House) and revitalizing the

RFK campus; but I write now to ask you to reject 13 of the DC

bills before you today that encroach on DC's Home Rule:

Bills like H.R. 5183, the District of Columbia Home Rule

Improvement Act, make the District less efficient,

competitive, and responsive to the needs of a highly complex

unique local government that serves local, county and state

functions. Bogging down legislative and executive action only

adds costs and uncertainty, making it more difficult to

handle the economic headwinds and growth opportunities ahead.

Bills like H.R. 5214, the District of Columbia Cash Bail

Reform Act, make DC less safe. Replacing our very effective

pre-trial detention regime, which focuses on charged violent

offenses and repeat violent offenders, not just on cash bail.

I credit recent changes to our laws related to pre-trial

detention for helping to drive down violent crime in the last

two years.

And the bills to abolish the Judicial Nominations

Commission and to convert the elected DC Attorney General to

a Presidentially appointed legal officer for the District are

both less democratic and untenable for District operations.

The Judicial Nomination Commission, with seven members

appointed by the Mayor, DC Council, President, US District

Court for DC, and the DC Bar, works. As recently as last

month, President Trump nominated three federal judicial

nominees who were selected from the Commission's candidate

pool--a process that demonstrates the value of maintaining

local input. DC residents also voted to elect an Attorney

General who represents the public interest. Changes to these

charter agencies would significantly undercut the already

thin ties to autonomy that limited home rule provides.

Finally, I urge you not to up end our three-part education

funding SOAR Act. I have long supported the program to expand

opportunity for DC students. However, my support has always

been contingent on parity among all three education sectors--

public, private, and charter--and this approach is working.

We will not support changes that tip the scales away from

this core principle of fairness for DC families. As the

fastest improving urban school system, DC has become a model

for urban education. We outpace the national average on all

tested subject areas. We boast free, full-day Pre-K access

serving more than 13,200 young learners--an investment which

supports our children and our workforce. DC ranked top of the

nation in parental satisfaction regarding school choice.

Mayoral control, council oversight, and deep, targeted

investments in our students, teachers, and buildings made

these remarkable achievements possible.

I look forward to continuing a productive partnership with

the Committee--one that respects the will of DC residents and

honors the principles of home rule. Together, we can build on

our successes while protecting the autonomy that, as history

reflects, has made our city stronger.

Sincerely,

Muriel Bowser,

Mayor.

Mr. Speaker, D.C. is a world-class city, yet this bill seeks to codify and encourage President Trump's efforts to control and transform D.C., as well as to demonize D.C. and its 700,000 residents, the majority of whom are Black and Brown. President Trump already has called for the repeal of D.C. home rule, federalized the D.C. police department, deployed troops and masked Federal agents on D.C.'s streets, terrorized immigrants in D.C., demolished the East Wing of the White House, removed the nonprofit managing the public golf courses in D.C., and announced the closure of the Kennedy Center. This bill will only embolden him.

This bill would establish in the executive branch the D.C. Safe and Beautiful Commission. The commission's responsibilities include increasing civil immigration enforcement in D.C., deploying more Federal law enforcement officers in D.C., and increasing the number of people carrying guns in D.C.

The commission's top priority is to increase civil immigration enforcement in D.C. Specifically, the commission is required to ensure the ``maximum enforcement of Federal immigration law within the District of Columbia, including policies to encourage the redirection of available Federal, State, or local law enforcement resources to apprehend and deport illegal aliens,'' and to monitor D.C.'s ``compliance with the enforcement of Federal immigration law.'' The commission is also

required to facilitate the ``deployment of a more robust Federal law enforcement presence'' in D.C. and to ``increase the speed and lower the costs of processing concealed carry'' permits in D.C.

However, D.C. does not want masked Federal agents terrorizing communities, separating families, and destroying the community trust needed for effective local policing or more guns on the streets.

This bill would also require the Secretary of the Interior to ``develop a program to beautify'' D.C., even though D.C. is already one of the most beautiful cities in the world.

This Congress, Republicans have filed over 100 bills, amendments, and riders to repeal, amend, or block D.C. from carrying out local laws and policies. The House has already passed 10 of those bills.

D.C. residents have all the obligations of American citizenship, including paying Federal taxes, serving on juries, and registering with the Selective Service, yet Congress denies them full local self- government and voting representation in Congress. The only solution to this undemocratic treatment is to grant D.C. statehood.

Congress has the authority to admit D.C. as a State. The D.C. statehood bill, H.R. 51, would reduce the size of the Federal district from 68 square miles to 2 square miles, consisting of the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, and The National Mall. The residential and commercial areas of D.C. would be a new State.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 5103.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter opposing this bill from Brady United Against Gun Violence.

March 25, 2026.

Dear Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: Founded

in 1974, Brady works across Congress, courts, and

communities, uniting gun owners and non-gun owners alike, to

take action, not sides, and end America's gun violence

epidemic. Our organization today carries the name of Jim and

Sarah Brady. As you know, Jim was shot and severely injured

in the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan. As

victims of gun violence and life-long gun owners, Jim and

Sarah dedicated the rest of their lives to passing federal

legislation requiring background checks for gun sales. Brady

continues to uphold Jim and Sarah's legacy by uniting

Americans from coast to coast, red and blue, young and old,

liberal and conservative, to combat the epidemic of gun

violence.

This week, the House will consider the Make the District of

Columbia Safe and Beautiful Act of 2026 (H.R. 5 103), which

establishes in the federal executive branch the District of

Columbia Safe and Beautiful Commission, consisting entirely

of federal officials. This bill is yet another example of

federal overreach into the affairs of the District's

residents, imposing unnecessary and unwanted criminal and

civil reforms. Most egregiously, the bill would direct the

commission to seek to ``increase the speed and lower the cost

of processing concealed carry license requests in the

District of Columbia.'' Brady stands in strong opposition to

H.R. 5103 and urges Members to oppose this dangerous

overreach of federal authority over the District of Columbia

and its residents.

Every American should have a say in how they can best

prevent gun violence and violent crime in their own

communities; that is at the very core of the system of

federalism our founding fathers fought a revolution to

create. Yet, when it comes to efforts to pass public safety

laws, citizens of our nation's capital are often at the mercy

of federal legislators with little interest in their needs,

and attempts by the District's leaders to keep their

communities safe are continuously tossed aside by lawmakers

with no stake in those communities.

The District's residents are among the only Americans who

bear all the responsibilities of citizenship without fully

realizing their benefits. The District has a population

larger than two states that enjoy full representation in

Congress. D.C. residents pay higher taxes than residents in

all but 2 states and have the highest per capita federal tax

rate in the nation. Yet, D.C. Home Rule is limited--Congress

has the power to review and block local legislation, impose

their own legislative prerogatives, control the budget, and

appoint judges.

The District of Columbia, guided by interest in preserving

public safety for its residents and visitors, has implemented

a concealed firearm carry licensing process that ensures

prospective licensees meet the necessary legal requirements

for firearm and concealed carry possession, including the

completion of an MPD-approved range training, within the

District. Under H.R 5103, the federal government would meddle

with the District's laws regarding who can carry concealed

handguns in public, undermining its ability to enforce laws

in service of public safety.

District residents deserve autonomy over their home and

over how they choose to combat violent crime. The federal

government should not abuse its oversight of the District of

Columbia to interfere with home rule policies and practices.

As such, Brady calls on Members to oppose H.R. 5103 and any

other bill that restricts the autonomy of the District of

Columbia or overrides the District's criminal justice laws.

Best regards,

Mark A. Collins,

Director, Federal Policy.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Ensuring Full Participation in the Census Act of 2026, which would prohibit the U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) from including questions on the decennial census about citizenship, nationality or immigration status.

Prior to the 2020 census, the Department of Justice wrote to the Bureau requesting that it ``reinstate on the 2020 census questionnaire a question regarding citizenship.'' From 1970 to 2000, this question was sent to approximately 16 percent of the population in the decennial census through the so-called ``longform.'' However, the longform was dropped from the census and replaced with the current American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is sent to approximately three million people annually, which allows the Bureau to get the necessary information on citizenship. Asking questions about citizenship status to every person in the decennial census has not been done in almost 70 years because it would discourage people, largely minorities, who are already undercounted in the census, from participating in the census. The ACS was created to make the decennial census simpler for people to complete, which facilitates higher participation rates and preserves privacy.

Fortunately, after a protracted legal and political process, the citizenship question was not included on the 2020 census. However, this bill is necessary to ensure it cannot be asked on a future decennial census. The representative sample provided by the ACS is more than sufficient to determine citizenship statistics in the U.S. All individuals must be counted in the decennial census to ensure an accurate allocation of federal funds and representation in Congress.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Jury Duty Exemption for Breastfeeding Act of 2026, which would allow breastfeeding individuals summoned for jury service in the federal courts or the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to be excused from service upon the individual's request. The benefits of breastfeeding are well- documented, and individuals should not be deterred from breastfeeding by jury service.

This bill would apply to the D.C. Superior Court because Congress is the only legislative body that can mandate this exemption for the D.C. Superior Court. The D.C. Home Rule Act prohibits the D.C. Council from enacting any law relating to Title 11 of the D.C. Code, which governs jury service in the D.C. Superior Court.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Juror Pay Parity Act, which would require D.C.'s local trial court, the Superior Court, to pay jurors the same amount federal courts pay jurors. Currently, the Superior Court pays jurors the same amount federal courts pay jurors, but the Superior Court has sometimes paid less.

Under the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Congress assumed responsibility for funding the local D.C. courts. The local D.C. courts, however, have always been under the direct control of Congress, even when they were funded by D.C. The D.C. Home Rule Act prohibits the D.C. Council from enacting any law with respect to any provision of Title 11 of the D.C. Code (relating to the organization and jurisdiction of the local D.C. courts). Under Title II, the Board of Judges of the Superior Court sets juror pay.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commend David Nelson for his service at Amtrak. After 35 years of service at Amtrak, David will be retiring on March 2, 2026.

David started his career as a computer systems manager for former House Majority Whip Tony Coelho. During that time, Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). After working in Congress, David began working at Amtrak. During his time at Amtrak, he has taught numerous employees and executives throughout the organization about the ADA. He was a catalyst for Amtrak's march toward accessibility when he started in 1990, and he has not stopped since.

A tireless advocate for people with disabilities in transportation, David was an active member of the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) and received its Frederick C. Schrieber Distinguished Service Award in 2004, as well as the RIT 2015 Distinguished Alumni Award for the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID). He represented NAD on numerous business and association accessibility councils, including at Amtrak, Northwest Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Greyhound Lines, Open Doors Organization and NTID Advisory Group.

In his spare time, David served as president of the District of Columbia Association of the Deaf and the Florida School for the Deaf Alumni Association. While he is a proud alumnus of the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind, elementary and middle school were difficult years for David. He was mainstreamed in the local schools, where students were not permitted to use American Sign Language and were physically reprimanded for doing so. David's grandmother supported his transfer to the Florida School for the Deaf for high school, which set him on a path toward college and a career.

David holds a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Systems from the Rochester Institute of Technology as well as an Associate's Degree in Data Processing from NTID. He has resided in the District of Columbia for approximately 40 years.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in thanking David Nelson for his contributions to Amtrak and our Nation.