Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill that would require the Directors of 2 federal agencies, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA) and the District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency (PSA), to reside in the District of Columbia during their terms. Residency requirements for certain government positions are found in federal law, D.C. law and the laws of jurisdictions throughout the United States. The primary reason such laws exist is so that government officials have a connection to the residents they serve and in-depth knowledge of the unique issues and challenges faced by residents. Last Congress, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform passed this bill.

CSOSA and PSA are federal agencies that focus exclusively on D.C. CSOSA supervises individuals on probation, parole or supervised release under D.C. law. PSA makes recommendations regarding pretrial release and supervises defendants for the D.C. Superior Court and the U.S. District Court for D.C. The Directors of CSOSA and PSA should be required to be D.C. residents since these agencies serve only D.C.

Congress has justifiably required that certain federal officials live in the jurisdictions to which they are appointed, including U.S. district court judges, U.S. Marshals and U.S. Attorneys. Similarly, Congress, which controls the local D.C. court system, has justifiably required local D.C. judges and members of the D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission and the D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure to reside in D.C.

There is no reason that the Directors of CSOSA and PSA, federal agencies that uniquely serve D.C., should not be required to live in D.C. These federal officials need to be part of the community they serve. A D.C. residency requirement for these federal officials will lead to better outcomes in the criminal justice system and is a matter of fairness for D.C. residents.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill to direct the General Services Administration (GSA) to sell the federal property known as the Daniel Webster School, which is located in the District of Columbia, for fair market value by December 31, 2025. I am grateful that Representative Scott Perry, the Chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management, joins me in introducing this common-sense legislation.

Built in 1882, the Daniel Webster School, a red-brick, 3-story building, has been used for a variety of purposes over the years. However, since the 1980s, the building, which is located in downtown, has been vacant and fallen into disrepair. This bill will return it to productive use.

During my service in Congress, I have worked to transfer unused or underused federal land in D.C. to D.C. or the private sector to redevelop neighborhoods and to generate tax revenue for D.C. I passed 2 bills that enabled the transformation of the Southeast and Southwest waterfronts into thriving, mixed-use neighborhoods known today as The Yards and The Wharf, respectively. I passed a bill to transfer Reservation 13, which is in Hill East, and Poplar Point to D.C. I passed a bill that required the redevelopment of the Old Post Office, which is now a hotel. I successfully fought to ensure that at least 67 acres of the 110-acre Walter Reed Army Medical Center campus would go to D.C. for redevelopment. I also successfully worked to bring federal agencies to NoMa, which spurred billions of dollars in mixed-use development.

The sale provision in this bill is the same as the sale provision in the bill enacted in 2016 that directed GSA to sell the federal property in D.C. known as the Cotton Annex, which is now being converted into housing.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Nation's community supervision professionals, who are dedicated public servants and perform many vital roles in their work with justice-involved adults and juveniles. They identify opportunities and services to help individuals successfully contribute to society, while holding them accountable for their actions. They remain mindful of their role in protecting public safety.

In honor of Pretrial, Probation and Parole Supervision Week 2023, we salute all those who have chosen this important career. In the District of Columbia, we especially thank the employees of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA) and the Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia (PSA) for their service. CSOSA and PSA are models of excellence in community supervision. Their work reflects the theme of Pretrial, Probation and Parole Supervision Week 2023, ``Stronger Together.''

Community supervision agencies are valuable partners of other government agencies, nonprofits, neighborhood-based groups and all who strive to make our nation safer and stronger. We extend our gratitude to them and encourage all people to recognize their many achievements as we proclaim July 16-22, 2023, Pretrial, Probation and Parole Supervision Week 2023.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Restroom Access Act of 2023, which would require retail establishments to provide individuals with medical conditions requiring immediate use of a restroom, such as Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, access to employee-only restrooms when such establishments do not have public restrooms. Individuals would have to present a Department of Labor- issued identification card certifying such a medical condition.

Individuals with certain medical conditions need immediate access to a restroom. When public restrooms are not available, these individuals may experience uncomfortable or embarrassing situations. As long as there are no safety concerns, which this bill addresses, these individuals should be able to use employee-only restrooms.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a bill that would expand the mission of the National Park Service (NPS) to include active use of National Park System units located in urban areas. The idea for this bill came from a new report authored by George Washington University's Sumner M. Redstone Global Center for Prevention and Wellness that examined strategies to create a more equitable and activated park system in the District of Columbia.

As the report notes, NPS parks in D.C. are ``inconsistently managed and inequitably maintained'' and ``do not meet the needs of people who both live near and experience the park system as a part of their daily lives.'' Efforts to activate and improve local parks have been hindered by limitations on NPS's statutory authority. 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, in addition to grand national parks, NPS also owns neighborhood parks in urban areas. For example, more than 20 percent of D.C. land consists of parkland, and NPS owns nearly 90 percent of it, over two-thirds of which is local, neighborhood parks, smaller than one acre. These parks could benefit from improvements that prioritize community engagement, including trails, playgrounds and benches. However, NPS's mission is limited to preserving land as it currently exists. This mission is ill- suited to address the unique and immediate needs of urban neighborhood parks.

This bill would expand the mission of NPS to include the promotion of active use of its parks located 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 located 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 the District of Columbia National Guard Commanding General Residency Act, which would require the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard to reside in D.C. Last Congress, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform passed this bill.

D.C. has no control over the D.C. National Guard. Instead, the president controls the D.C. National Guard, which many Americans first learned either during the January 6, 2021, attack on the United States Capitol, when the Trump administration delayed deploying the D.C. National Guard to the Capitol for several hours, or during the June 2020 attack by federal law enforcement on largely peaceful protestors outside the White House, in which the D.C. National Guard was used by the Trump administration as part of the attack. In contrast, governors of the states and the three territories that have National Guards each control their National Guards.

I have long introduced a bill, the D.C. National Guard Home Rule Act, that would give the D.C. mayor control over the D.C. National Guard. Last Congress, the House's fiscal year (FY) 2022 and FY 2023 National Defense Authorization Act included the D.C. National Guard Home Rule Act, but it was stripped out of the final versions of the FY 2022 and FY 2023 NDAA because Republicans threatened to vote against the must- pass NDAA if it included the D.C. National Guard Home Rule Act.

The Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard is the top official in the D.C. National Guard, is appointed by the president and is a federal employee. There are residency requirements for government officials in federal law, D.C. law and the laws of jurisdictions throughout the country. In fact, several states have laws that require the top official in their National Guard to reside in their state, and it is highly likely that every state and territory only appoints residents as the top official in their National Guard. The primary reason residency requirements exist is so that government officials have a connection to the residents they serve and in-depth knowledge of the unique issues and challenges faced by residents.

Congress has justifiably required that certain federal officials reside in the jurisdiction to which they are appointed, including U.S. district court judges, U.S. Marshals and U.S. Attorneys. Similarly, Congress, which controls the local D.C. court system, has justifiably required local D.C. judges and members of the D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission and the D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure to reside in D.C.

There is no reason that the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard, a federal entity that serves only D.C. residents and that has both a military and law enforcement role, should not be required to reside in D.C. A D.C. residency requirement for the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard will lead to a better relationship between the D.C. National Guard and D.C. residents and is a matter of fairness for D.C. residents.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Federal Judicial Officials Residency Equality Act, which would require the federal district court judges, federal circuit court judges, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Marshals and federal court clerk appointed to serve D.C. to reside in D.C. In nearly every other jurisdiction in the United States, such officials are required by federal law to reside in the jurisdiction they have been appointed to serve. The only exceptions are the U.S. Attorney and U.S. Marshal for the Northern Mariana Islands who at the same time are serving in the same capacity in another jurisdiction, and officials appointed to the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of New York, which are the only districts in different parts of the same city.

The requirement that these federal officials reside in the jurisdiction they serve is related to knowledge of the community and to the effect of decisions. As stated in the official commentary to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, ``a judge should not become isolated from the society in which the judge lives.'' The same holds true for other federal officials. This bill recognizes that D.C. deserves federal officials with the same understanding and links to the community as Congress has seen fit to require for federal officials in other jurisdictions.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in celebrating the 31st anniversary of the Giant National Capital Barbecue Battle. This District of Columbia summertime tradition takes place during the 1st full week of summer each year and brings together 10 of 1000 of D.C.-area families and visitors to the nation's capital in the spirit of unity, community and celebration. The Giant National Capital Barbecue Battle is returning once again to historic Pennsylvania Avenue on Saturday, June 24, 2023, featuring the Giant National BBQ Championship, the National Pork BBQ Championship, the Smokin' with Smithfield Rib Contest, the Perdue Sizzlin' Chicken Contest, the Turkey Smoke BBQ Cooking Contest, the PA Beef Steak Cookoff and the Beyond Meat Plant-Based Barbecue Championship.

The Giant National Capital Barbecue Battle has raised millions of dollars for D.C. charities and USO-Metro over the past 31 years and donated tons of food to food banks. The Giant National Capital Barbecue Battle has expanded to include a month of celebration in D.C., with partnerships including Monumental Sports, Ben's Chili Bowl and Anacostia BID through Art to Go-Go, to promote D.C. and its unique culture. The Giant National Capital Barbecue Battle draws some of D.C.'s and the nation's best barbecue talent, and those participants have the duty and the honor of representing D.C. wherever State Barbecue Cooking Championship winners are welcomed. Mr. Speaker, again, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the aims and goals of the Giant National Capital Barbecue Battle and its 31st consecutive year.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Courts and Public Defender Service Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would apply the District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977 (DCHRA) to employees of the local D.C. courts and the D.C. Public Defender Service (PDS). Last year, the D.C. Court of Appeals held in Robertson v. District of Columbia that the DCHRA, which protects employees of the D.C. government and private employers from discrimination, does not apply to employees of the local D.C. courts. The court has not ruled on the applicability of the DCHRA to PDS employees.

The local D.C. courts and PDS are unique entities, and they sometimes fall through the regulatory cracks. They are neither federal nor D.C. government entities, though both were created and are funded by Congress, and their employees are treated as federal employees for some employee benefits. This bill would ensure that their employees have comprehensive protections from and remedies for employment discrimination.

While employees of the local D.C. courts and PDS are protected by federal anti-discrimination laws, the DCHRA provides much broader protections and remedies for employees than federal anti-discrimination laws.

While the D.C. Council may have the authority to pass such a bill itself, only Congress has the clear authority to do so, given the express limitations in the D.C. Home Rule Act on the Council's authority to legislate on matters affecting the operations of the local D.C. courts, and given that Congress has generally served as the legislative body for PDS.

I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on overriding the veto.

H.J. Res. 42 is a profoundly undemocratic, paternalistic resolution. Congress, in which the nearly 700,000 District of Columbia residents have no voting representation, is attempting to nullify legislation passed by D.C.'s locally elected legislature.

While it is true that Congress has the constitutional authority to legislate on local D.C. matters, it is false that Congress has a constitutional obligation to do so. It is a choice.

D.C. residents, a majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable and worthy of governing themselves.

Democracy, according to the dictionary, is ``a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.''

D.C.'s lack of voting representation in Congress and Congress' plenary authority over D.C. are the antithesis of democracy.

The legislative history and merits of D.C.'s Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, which is the subject of H.J. Res. 42, should be irrelevant, since there is never justification for Congress nullifying legislation enacted by D.C., but I would like to briefly discuss them.

D.C.'s Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 is consistent with House Democrats' George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, President Biden's executive order on policing and police accountability, and transparency legislation enacted by dozens of States, both red and blue, to improve public safety and public trust after the murder of George Floyd.

As President Biden said in his veto message, H.J. Res. 42, ``would overturn commonsense police reforms.''

D.C.'s Comprehensive Justice and Reform Amendment Act of 2022 would, among other things, make it easier to fire officers for misconduct, prohibit the hiring of officers with prior misconduct, strengthen civilian oversight of police, and prohibit chokeholds.

Congress requires D.C.'s local legislature, the D.C. Council, to pass legislation twice, separated by at least 13 days.

The Council passed the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 by votes 11-0 and 13-0. While the legislation was enacted without the D.C.'s Mayor's signature, the Mayor has urged Congress to oppose H.J. Res. 42.

The D.C. 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.

Congress has 535 voting Members. The Members are elected by residents of States. None are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how the Members vote, they cannot vote them out of office.

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, whether on national or local D.C. matters, though they pay full Federal taxes. Indeed, D.C. pays more Federal taxes per capita than any State and more total Federal taxes than 19 States while being denied voting representation in Congress.

In closing, I would set the record straight on the legal effect of H.J. Res. 42. While Congress can legislate on any D.C. matter at any time, the process for a disapproval resolution is set forth in the D.C. Home Rule Act.

Under the Home Rule Act, a disapproval resolution only has legal effect if Congress passes it before the expiration of the review period for the legislation that is the subject of the disapproval resolution.

In the case of the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, the review period expired before the Senate passed H.J. Res. 42. Therefore, H.J. Res. 42 would have no legal effect even if the veto were overridden.

Nevertheless, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on overriding the veto, and I say to every Member of Congress: Keep your hands off D.C.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Local Juror Non-Discrimination Act of 2023. This bill would clarify that D.C. residents may not be excluded or disqualified from jury service in the local D.C. trial court, the D.C. Superior Court, based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Specifically, this bill would clarify that the term sex, which is a protected class under the non- discrimination law that applies to jurors in the D.C. Superior Court, includes sexual orientation and gender identity. Last Congress, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform passed this bill.

D.C. has one of the strongest non-discrimination laws in the country, including protecting individuals based on sexual orientation and gender identity. However, under the D.C. Home Rule Act, D.C. does not have the authority to amend the non-discrimination law that applies to D.C. jurors. Therefore, until D.C. is given control over its local courts, an act of Congress is required to clarify that LGBTQ+ jurors are protected from discrimination.

As the Supreme Court said in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, ``discrimination within the courtroom raises serious questions as to the fairness of the proceedings conducted there. [B]ias mars the integrity of the judicial system and prevents the idea of democratic government from becoming a reality.'' Similarly, the Court, in Batson v. Kentucky, which was a juror discrimination case based on race, said, ``The harm from discriminatory jury selection extends beyond that inflicted on the defendant and the excluded juror to touch the entire community. Selection procedures that purposefully exclude black persons from juries undermine public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice.''

I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill to provide the District of Columbia comprehensive eligibility for funding under the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling grant program. The program is authorized under the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act.

The program was intended to provide grants to both states and municipalities to ensure the comprehensive management of post-consumer wastes and plastics and to prevent the continued contamination of our nation's waters by these materials. In its implementation of the program, the EPA created two separate grants--one for states and one for municipalities. The EPA made D.C. eligible for the state program, as required by the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act, but not the municipality program, even though it should have been eligible for the municipality program, too. The EPA has misinterpreted the definition of municipality in the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act and is depriving D.C. of funds to which it is entitled.

Making D.C. eligible for both grants--both as a state and as a municipality--is consistent with the overall intent of the program and would enable D.C. to utilize funding both for the development of a comprehensive strategy to improve post-consumer materials management and recycling, and for implementation of specific collection and treatment measures to remove these wastes from the wastewater stream.

The Save Our Seas 2.0 Act defines the terms ``state'' and ``municipality'' for the purposes of the program. Section 2 of the Act defines the term ``state'' as specifically including D.C. Section 302(c) of the Act utilizes the definition for ``municipality'' in section 502 of the Clean Water Act. which includes ``a city, town, borough, county, parish, district, association, or other public body . . . having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes.'' D.C. falls under the definitions of both terms and therefore should be eligible for both grants under the program.

Given that D.C. operates as the functional equivalent of a joint city, county and state, D.C. is analogous to a municipality that has jurisdiction over publicly owned treatment works under section 302(c) of the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act, as well as being explicitly defined under section 2 of the Act as a state. Exclusion of D.C. from either portion of the program is inconsistent with the comprehensive nature of post- consumer waste management under the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and would leave D.C. poorly positioned to address the challenges of post-consumer wastes in our Nation's waters.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Non-Discrimination Home Rule Act of 2023, which would end the unique applicability of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) to the District of Columbia. My bill would protect the District's right to self-government, ensuring the District is treated the same as states, and defend LGBTQ+ and reproductive rights in D.C.

RFRA, which provides more protection for religious exercise than the First Amendment requires, applies to the federal government, the D.C. government and the territorial governments, but not to state governments. As RFRA does not apply to the states, under the principles of home rule, it should likewise not apply to the District.

While RFRA was designed to be a shield to protect religious freedom, it is being used, as evidenced by the Supreme Court's 2014 Hobby Lobby decision, as a sword to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community and women. Members of Congress have used RFRA as a justification for trying--but failing--to overturn D.C. non-discrimination laws. House Republicans have repeatedly tried since 2015 to nullify or block the District's Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees and their families based on reproductive health decisions, claiming, in part, that it violates RFRA.

My bill would ensure that District residents are treated the same as residents of the states under RFRA. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are considering H. Con. Res. 43, to authorize the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Hoyer for introducing this resolution. The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby is an annual competitive event that encourages children, ages 9 through 16, to construct and race their own soapbox vehicles on the Capitol Grounds.

This event has become a great tradition in the District of Columbia metropolitan area over the last few decades. It provides a terrific opportunity for children to appreciate the work necessary to build the vehicles and enjoy the thrill of competition.

The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby organizers will work with the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police to ensure the appropriate rules and regulations are in place and that the event remains free to the public.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 43, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Box Derby is a time-honored tradition that provides an opportunity to promote fair and honest competition amongst the children in the Greater

Washington area.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Clemency Home Rule Act, which would give the District of Columbia exclusive authority to grant clemency for D.C. crimes. Currently, the president exercises the authority to grant clemency for D.C. crimes, though rarely do so. D.C. residents deserve a say in whether their fellow residents deserve mercy. Last Congress, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform passed this bill as part of the District of Columbia Home Rule Expansion Act of 2022 (H.R. 8861).

While D.C. law appears to give the mayor authority to grant clemency (D.C. Code 1-301.76), under current practice, clemency petitions for D.C. crimes, like federal crimes, are submitted to the Department of Justice for the president's consideration.

This bill would remove all doubt that D.C., and not the president, has the authority to grant clemency for D.C. crimes. D.C. should have full control over its local criminal justice system, the most basic responsibility of local government, like the states and territories have over their criminal justice systems. Since the D.C. Council has the authority to enact local laws, D.C. officials are in the best position to grant clemency for D.C. crimes. This bill would give D.C. the discretion to establish its own clemency system.

This bill is an important step in establishing additional autonomy for D.C. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.