Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this radical, undemocratic, and paternalistic bill, as do the three top local, elected District of Columbia officials: Mayor Muriel Bowser, Council Chair Phil Mendelson, and D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record their joint letter opposing this bill.

May 14, 2024.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, before I discuss the substance of this bill, I want to discuss democracy and the lack of it in the District of Columbia.

D.C. residents, who have all the obligations of American citizenship, have no voting representation in Congress, and Congress has the ultimate say on local D.C. matters.

While my Republican colleagues are correct that Congress has the constitutional authority to legislate on local D.C. matters, their assertion that Congress has a constitutional duty to do so is simply wrong. Legislating on local D.C. matters is a choice. As the Supreme Court held in 1953, ``there is no constitutional barrier to the delegation by Congress to the District of Columbia of full legislative power.''

D.C.'s local legislature, the council, has 13 members. The members are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how the members vote, they can vote them out of office. That is called democracy.

Congress has 535 voting Members. The Members are elected by residents of their States. None are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how Members vote on local matters, they cannot vote them out of office. That is the antithesis of democracy.

The merits of this bill should be irrelevant, since there is never justification for Congress legislating on local D.C. matters. However, I will discuss the bill.

This bill would be the biggest rollback of D.C.'s self-government in a generation. This bill says the D.C. Council may not ``enact any act, resolution, or rule to change any criminal liability sentence in effect on the date of the enactment of the DC CRIMES Act of 2024.''

This provision, which does not define the term ``criminal liability sentence,'' is as poorly drafted as it is offensive. It takes away D.C.'s authority to increase or decrease statutory criminal penalties. If D.C. wanted to increase penalties for violent crime, it could not do so. This bill could even be construed to prevent D.C. from establishing any new crimes at all.

This bill also reduces the maximum age of eligibility for D.C.'s Youth Rehabilitation Amendment Act of 1985. D.C. is not the only jurisdiction to have such a so-called young adult offender law. Alabama, Florida, Michigan, New York, South Carolina, and Vermont have such laws. The sponsor of this bill is from one of those six States.

Mr. Speaker, the Revolutionary War was fought to give consent to the governed and to end taxation without representation, yet D.C. residents cannot consent to any action taken by Congress and pay full Federal taxes. Indeed, D.C. pays more Federal taxes per capita than any State and more total Federal taxes than 20 States.

If House Republicans cared about democratic principles or D.C. residents, they would bring to the floor my D.C. statehood bill, H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act, which would give D.C. residents voting representation in Congress and full local self-government.

Congress has the constitutional authority to admit the State of Washington, D.C. It simply lacks the will.

Mr. Speaker, I introduce the Washington Channel Public Access Act. This bill would prohibit the Secretary of the Army from finalizing, implementing or enforcing any rule that would restrict access to the Washington Channel (Channel) in the District of Columbia.

In 2019, the Secretary of the Army proposed a rule to establish a permanent restricted area in the Channel adjacent to Fort McNair, which would have restricted access to the navigable portion of the Channel by narrowing the waterway where recreational and commercial vessels could traverse and prohibited anchoring and mooring altogether. The U.S. Army Military District of Washington cited security needs at Fort McNair to justify the rule.

The proposed rule was arbitrary and capricious and would have unnecessarily restricted recreational and commercial access to the Channel without providing any security benefits.

Neighborhoods like The Yards and The Wharf have reinvigorated community engagement on the waterfront, and the Channel is increasingly used for regional transportation and recreation. The stretch of the Channel past Fort McNair is the only connection to the Potomac River. The rule would have likely forced kayaks, paddleboards and recreational boats into the same space as water taxis and river cruise ships, creating a potentially dangerous situation.

I hosted a public meeting in which community members expressed overwhelming opposition to the proposed rule, but military officials did not address the question of whether less restrictive measures could provide the same security. I then wrote asking Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to direct the U.S. Army Military District of Washington and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to withdraw the proposed rule and to prohibit these agencies from proposing a similar rule. In 2021, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure passed a version of this bill. In 2022, the U.S. Army withdrew the proposed rule. Nevertheless, this bill is necessary to ensure that the Secretary of the Army does not finalize, implement or enforce a rule that would restrict public access to the Channel.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7525.

The Special District Grant Accessibility Act is a bipartisan measure that takes a positive step forward toward ensuring that Federal policy better reflects the complexities of local governments and how they work.

Congress confronted these complexities when it acted to send aid to local governments during the coronavirus pandemic. This included committee Democrats' historic work with the Biden-Harris administration to provide $350 billion in direct financial assistance to more than 30,000 governments across the country, the vast majority of which were small local governments, and many of whom received significant assistance for the first time.

This bill would provide further clarity around special districts, a special unit of local government. According to the National Special Districts Coalition, there are roughly 35,000 such special districts across the Nation that play an important role in delivering essential government services, like wastewater treatment and fire protection, to millions of Americans.

Special districts have reported challenges when trying to access Federal funding opportunities and have indicated that a unified Federal definition of ``special district'' would help clarify how entities can best assist local communities through Federal assistance programs.

To address these concerns, H.R. 7525 would codify a definition of the term and direct OMB to clarify how Federal agencies can recognize special districts as units of local government for the purpose of being eligible for Federal grants and other Federal assistance.

Congress and the Federal Government must continually work to ensure Federal assistance programs are authorized, funded, and implemented to best address the needs of local communities. This should include careful consideration of the intricacies of local governments and a rigorous commitment to ensuring Federal assistance promotes equal opportunity for everyone.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate subcommittee Chairman Pat Fallon and Representative Brittany Pettersen for their excellent bipartisan work and support of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Pettersen).

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 7525, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of S. 2073. I thank my colleague from California, Ranking Member Robert Garcia, for introducing the House companion to the Eliminate Useless Reports Act of 2023. I am proud to support this bipartisan legislation. The accumulation of outdated and redundant reports is something that the Oversight Committee has tried to deal with several times over the past few decades.

The Eliminate Useless Reports Act takes an innovative approach. It would establish clear procedures for Federal agencies to request the elimination or modification of duplicative or outdated reports in their annual budget justifications. This would ensure that the correct committee of jurisdiction with the appropriate expertise considers this request. This bill would better inform Congress and the executive branch and ensure that agencies are not wasting time or resources on redundant or archaic reports.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for S. 2073, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the GSA Technology Accountability Act.

I thank my colleagues, Representative Comer and Chairman Sessions and their staffs, for their partnership and collaboration on this bill. I am pleased to support the updated form of this bill.

This bill would bring increased transparency to some of the General Services Administration's leading programs that are funded by the Federal Citizens Services Fund and the Federal Acquisition Fund.

As GSA continues to make the technological advancements that allow the American people to securely access government services, this bill will allow Congress to fulfill its vital oversight responsibilities.

Once again, I thank my colleagues for working with us to address GSA's concerns about the original legislation and ensure that this bill allows for increased transparency without creating unnecessary administrative burdens.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this bipartisan bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The ASTRO Act would give the Administrator of NASA the authority to allow astronauts returning from space to receive home-to-work transportation from the agency. Such transportation is currently permitted only on a case-by-case basis, and it must be reported to Congress. This bill also requires NASA to report annually to Congress on the use of this authority.

These seem like reasonable changes to me, and I support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3354 to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 220 North Hatcher Avenue in Purcellville, Virginia, as the Secretary of State Madeleine Albright Post Office Building.

This legislation, introduced by my tremendous colleague, Representative Jennifer Wexton of Virginia, would designate a post office after former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Secretary Albright fled Communist rule under Czechoslovakia and immigrated to Denver, Colorado, in 1948. She committed herself to a life of public service, including working for the U.S. Senate under then-Senator Edmund Muskie, and later served the Carter administration as a White House staff member and a staffer of the National Security Council.

Secretary Albright was appointed by President Clinton as Ambassador to the United Nations in 1993 and was a critical force behind the expansion of NATO ``to build, for the very first time, a peaceful, democratic, and undivided transatlantic community.'' She was committed to the democratization and security of European nations that escaped Soviet rule.

Secretary Albright is remembered as an important force behind the global fight against climate change, including by supporting the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty to fight global climate change. This protocol was eventually adopted in 1997.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Wexton).

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7423, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 103 Benedette Street in Rayville, Louisiana, as the Luke Letlow Post Office Building.

Congressman-elect Luke Letlow was poised to represent Louisiana's Fifth Legislative District after winning the special election seat when he tragically passed away from complications of COVID on December 29, 2020.

He is remembered by his congressional colleagues for his staunch commitment to public service. I encourage my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Congressman-elect Letlow by naming the post office in Rayville, Louisiana, after him.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I urge the passage of H.R. 7423, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 Technical Corrections Act of 2024, which would address several retirement issues for current and former District of Columbia employees that resulted from the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (Revitalization Act). The Revitalization Act, among other things, transferred several categories of employees who were in the D.C. retirement system to the federal retirement system and the federal government took over paying for the pension benefits earned by teachers, police officers, firefighters, and judges before 1997.

The Revitalization Act transferred several categories of employees, primarily related to D.C.'s criminal justice system, who participated in D.C.'s defined contribution plan from 1987 to 1997 to the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). However, these employees' service from 1987 to 1997 was not counted for purposes of creditable service or annuity amount in FERS. In 2009, Congress passed legislation counting this service for creditable service, but not annuity amount. This bill would allow these employees to buy into the FERS annuity amount for 1987 to 1997 by paying 1.3 percent of their base pay plus interest, essentially the employee contribution for this time, which would give them the full retirement benefit to which they should be entitled.

Second, this bill would address two benefit issues for employees in the teachers, police officers, and firefighters pension plans, whose pre-1997 benefits are funded by the federal government. In 2018, D.C. enacted a law to provide domestic partner benefits for the police and firefighters pension plan, which mirrored a law already enacted for teachers. However, these domestic partner benefits apply only to service accrued after 1997, since the federal government funds pre-1997 benefits. This bill would make the domestic partner benefits available for pre-1997 benefits, too.

Finally, in 2012, D.C. enacted the Equity in Survivor Benefits Amendment Act, which reduced from age 60 to 55 the age after which a surviving spouse may remarry without losing survivor benefits for those in the teachers, police, and firefighters pension plans. However, these survivor benefits apply only to service accrued after 1997, since the federal government funds pre-1997 benefits. This bill would bring those pre-1997 benefits in line with both the post-1997 benefits and the retirement benefits for federal employees in the Civil Service Retirement System or FERS and make an analogous change for D.C. judges, whose retirement benefits are funded by the federal government. In general, for federal retirees, 55 is the age after which a surviving spouse may remarry without losing survivor benefits.

This bill is an important step to assist these workers in getting the retirement benefits they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill to 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, including visitors to the Nation's capital, and will help bring much-needed funding for the park's inviting trails, waterways, and other unique features.

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.

Since Congress first designated Rock Creek Park, several structures and properties have been established or donated to further preserve Rock Creek Park, creating a vast connected park area that falls under a central National Park Service jurisdiction. In 1892, the federal government acquired Peirce Mill in Rock Creek Park, one of the mills used by local farmers during the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. In 1950, the Old Stone House located in Georgetown, with its pre- Revolutionary War architecture, was acquired by the park. The building was restored and programs explain the house's rich history from the colonial period to the present day. The Fort Circle Parks were also acquired to interpret and preserve the Civil War Defenses of Washington, which created a ring of protection for the Nation's capital during the Civil War. The Carter Barron Amphitheater, established in honor of the 150th anniversary of the Nation's capital, became an integral part of D.C.'s live music scene, and has featured acts including Ella Fitzgerald, Diana Ross, and Earth, Wind and Fire, as well as local artists. The redesignated ``Rock Creek National Park'' would encompass these later additions to the park.

Today, Rock Creek Park offers residents of D.C., Maryland, and Northern Virginia, as well as visitors, 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 on the trails, 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 forests, trails, and waterways.

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 the park and protect and revitalize this remarkable resource in our Nation's capital.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, on the anniversary of the week of the start of the Civil War, I introduce the Civil War Defenses of Washington National Historical Park Act, which would recognize and preserve the Civil War Defenses of Washington located in the District of Columbia, Virginia and Maryland. The Defenses of Washington, including forts, unarmed batteries and rifle trenches, created a ring of protection for the nation's capital during the Civil War. This bill would redesignate the 22 Civil War Defenses of Washington currently under National Park Service jurisdiction as a national historical park, and allow other sites associated with the Defenses of Washington that are owned by D.C. or a unit of state governments to be affiliated with the national historical park through cooperative agreements. This bill would also require the Secretary of the Interior to facilitate the history of the Civil War, including the history of the Defenses of Washington and the Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864, being assembled, arrayed and conveyed for the benefit of the public for the knowledge, education and inspiration of this and future generations. In 2018, the House Natural Resources Committee Subcommittee on Federal Lands held a hearing on this bill. Although the Department of the Interior opposed this bill, I feel strongly that the Defenses of Washington need additional recognition and should be redesignated as a national historical park.

The Defenses of Washington were constructed at the beginning of the war, in 1861, as a ring of protection for the nation's capital and for President Abraham Lincoln. By the end of the war, these defenses included 68 forts, 93 unarmed batteries, 807 mounted cannons, 13 miles of rifle trenches and 32 miles of military roads. The major test of the Defenses of Washington came with the Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864, when Confederate Lieutenant General Jubal Early, directed by General Robert E. Lee, sought to attack the nation's capital from the north, causing Union forces threatening to attack Richmond, the capital of the Confederacy, to be withdrawn. General Early was delayed by Union Major General Lew Wallace at the Battle of Monocacy on July 9, 1864, and was stopped at the northern edge of Washington at the Battle of Fort Stevens on July 11-12, 1864. The Shenandoah Valley Campaign ended when Union Lieutenant General Philip Sheridan defeated General Early at the Battle of Cedar Creek, Virginia on October 19, 1864.

Nearly all the individual forts in the Defenses of Washington--on both sides of the Potomac and Anacostia rivers--were involved in stopping General Early's attack, and the Battle of Fort Stevens was the second and last attempt by the Confederate Army to attack Washington.

Taken together, these battles were pivotal to the outcome of the war and the freedom and democracy that the war represented for this country. It is therefore fitting that we recognize the Defenses of Washington by redesignating them as a national historical park.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Ensuring Full Participation in the Census Act of 2024, 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 [c]ensus questionnaire a question regarding citizenship.'' From 1970 to 2000, this question was sent to only approximately 16 percent of the population in the decennial census through the so-called ``long-form.'' However, the long-form system was dropped from the census and replaced with the current American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is sent to approximately three million people annually on a rotational basis, and 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 legislation is necessary to ensure it cannot be asked on a future decennial census. The representative sampling provided by the ACS is more than sufficient to determine citizenship statistics in the U.S. We must ensure that all individuals are counted in the decennial census, thereby providing accurate allocation of federal funds and representation in Congress, and not reduce participation by asking a question that is already asked elsewhere.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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 is historic for being 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 in our country.

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 composed the lyrics to 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 American children 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 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 Combating Implicit Bias in Education Act. This bill would create a $30 million grant program for schools to train teachers, principals and other personnel on implicit bias with respect to actual or perceived race, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), disability, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. This bill aims to reduce the effect of implicit bias on school discipline, academic achievement, and academic attainment.

In 2019, a report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found that students of color with disabilities received far more severe and frequent punishment than their white counterparts. In 2017, the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality released a report finding that people disproportionately think of Black girls as more adult-like and less innocent compared to their white counterparts. This bias has been linked to harsher treatment of Black girls in schools.

Under this bill, the Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences would evaluate and report on the effectiveness of the training.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill to clarify certain due process rights of federal employees serving in sensitive positions. This bill would overturn an unprecedented federal court decision, Kaplan v. Conyers and MSPB, that stripped many federal employees of the light to independent review of an agency decision removing them from their jobs on grounds of ineligibility. The case was brought by two Department of Defense (DOD) employees, Rhonda Conyers, an accounting technician, and Devon Northover, a commissary management specialist, who were permanently demoted and suspended from their jobs after they were found to be no longer eligible to serve in noncritical sensitive positions. In 2014, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, which allowed the decision to stand. This bill is cosponsored by Representative Andre Carson.

Specifically, the decision prevents federal employees who are designated as ``noncritical sensitive'' from appealing to the Merit Systems Protection Board if they are removed from their jobs. Noncritical sensitive jobs include those that do not have access to classified information. The decision affects at least 200,000 DOD employees who are designated as noncritical sensitive. Even more concerning is that most federal employees could potentially lose the right to an independent review of an agency's decision because of a rule issued by the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that permits agency heads to designate most jobs in the federal government as noncritical sensitive, which went into effect in July 2015.

The decision undercuts Title 5, section 7701 of the Civil Service Act, which ensures due process rights for federal workers, as required by the Constitution. Stripping employees whose work does not involve classified matters of the right to an independent review of an agency decision that removes them from their jobs opens entirely new avenues for unreviewable, arbitrary action or retaliation by an agency head. This bill would stop the use of ``national security'' to undo a vital component of civil service protection and of due process.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.