Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the District of Columbia Transportation Funding Equality Act. The bill would make the District of Columbia eligible for three federal programs that support the development and revitalization of public transportation systems in the same manner that states are currently eligible for these programs. It would also make D.C. eligible for a transportation program that

would support the replacement and removal of infrastructure that damages the ecosystems of the Anacostia and Potomac rivers. D.C. residents pay the same federal taxes as residents of the states. In fact, D.C. pays more federal taxes per capita than any state. D.C. should be treated as a state in federal programs.

First, the bill would treat D.C. as a state in the High-Density States Formula for certain grants from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund. Currently, only states are eligible for these grants. Second, the bill would treat D.C. as a state under the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program. Under this program, each state is authorized to receive a minimum amount of $4 million per year, while D.C. is authorized to receive a minimum of only $1 million. Third, the bill would treat D.C. as a state under the National Culvert Removal, Replacement, and Restoration Grant Program. Currently, only states and units of local government are eligible for these competitive grants, and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has held that D.C. does not qualify, even though it operates as the functional equivalent of a joint city, county and state. Fourth, the bill would treat D.C. as a state for the purposes of the Safe Streets for All Program. Cities, counties and political subdivisions of a state are eligible for these grants, but DOT has held that D.C. is ineligible.

The programs in the bill fund the modernization of bus and rail fleets, the purchase of zero-emission transit vehicles, the improvement of station accessibility for all users, the extension of transit service to new communities, the replacement and repair of culverts, and the implementation of roadway safety improvements for all road users. They especially benefit communities of color, since these households are twice as likely to use public transportation.

Last Congress, the House's surface transportation reauthorization act, the INVEST in America Act, would have made D.C. eligible for these four programs in the same manner as states. Unfortunately, the enacted surface transportation reauthorization act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which the Senate wrote, did not.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Improving Reentry for District of Columbia Residents in the Bureau of Prisons Act of 2023. This bill would require the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to place D.C. residents serving sentences for D.C. Code felonies in BOP facilities within 250 miles of D.C. Under the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, individuals serving sentences for D.C. Code felonies are in BOP custody.

Currently, more than 2,000 D.C. residents are serving sentences for D.C. Code felonies, and they are in BOP facilities across the United States. While Congress will not provide funding to BOP to build a new facility for these D.C. residents, there are more than enough existing BOP facilities within 250 miles of D.C. to house all these D.C. residents. Under this bill, BOP could place a D.C. resident outside 250 miles upon the request or consent of a resident, and BOP could place a D.C. resident outside 250 miles without consent in extraordinary circumstances.

This bill would help D.C. residents in BOP maintain relationships with family and support networks and help them reenter society.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Postal Facilities Security Camera Act, which would require that, subject to appropriations, the United States Postal Service (USPS) install security cameras at each postal facility to protect USPS employees, customers and property.

Last year, I asked USPS to expand the use of security cameras at postal facilities in the District of Columbia and across the country after learning that a D.C. resident had recently been robbed in the parking lot of a post office in D.C. The parking lot was not monitored by a security camera. USPS responded that it was not financially feasible to install and maintain security cameras at every postal facility. This bill authorizes appropriations for security cameras at postal facilities.

USPS should have security cameras monitoring postal facilities--both inside and outside--to protect employees, customers and property. Security cameras can deter crime and assist in arrests and prosecutions.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Government Title Equality Act. This bill would amend the D.C. Home Rule Act to redesignate the Mayor as the Governor, the Council as the Legislative Assembly, the Councilmembers as Representatives and the Chair of the Council as the Speaker. The new titles are the ones used in the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth constitution, which the District adopted in 2016 in anticipation of passage of the Washington, D.C. Admission Act which would make D.C. the 51st state.

I introduce this bill to highlight to the American people and Members of Congress that there would be a seamless transition to D.C. statehood because D.C. already operates as the functional equivalent of a state, providing state-, county- and city-level services, despite being denied voting representation in Congress and full local self-government.

This bill would not change any legal authorities.

This is an important step to provide greater equality for the District, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Today, I introduce the Train Noise and Vibrations Reduction Act, which would direct the Secretary of Transportation to submit a report to Congress containing recommendations on how to reduce train noise and vibrations near homes, as well as estimates of the costs and benefits of each recommendation. Such recommendations would include modifications to trains, tracks and maintenance procedures, speed limits for trains, mitigation measures between tracks and homes, the distance between tracks and homes, limitations on the number of trains and the number of cars on trains, limitations on hours of operations, building insulation and modifications to soil conditions. The report would be due to Congress no later than one year after the enactment of the bill.

The Noise Control Act of 1972 created the Office of Noise Abatement and Control within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), granting EPA authority and oversight over broad noise control regulations. However, years of defunding left this office without any resources to conduct enforcement, forcing EPA to phase out the office in 1982. I hear from District of Columbia residents frequently about the negative impact of train noise and vibrations on their lives. The noise and vibrations can harm health and quality of life, and can even harm the structural integrity of homes. Congress and the executive branch must do more to reduce the harm nationwide.

As a senior member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, I have been committed to reducing transportation noise pollution. I have convened community meetings with the Federal Railroad Administration, the District of Columbia Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration to examine how to reduce train noise and vibrations. A report on reducing train noise and vibrations can help us identify viable, long-term solutions for communities.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Conversion Act of 2023. This bill would require that, beginning on the date that the President certifies to Congress that all countries possessing nuclear weapons have begun the verifiable and irreversible elimination of such weapons under the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (Treaty), the United States redirect resources that are being used for nuclear weapons programs to be used for addressing the climate crisis and human and infrastructure needs, such as housing, health care and restoring the environment.

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

As the only Nation that has used nuclear weapons in war, and that still possesses one of the largest nuclear weapons arsenals, my bill would help the United States reestablish its moral leadership in the world by redirecting funds that would otherwise go to nuclear weapons to address the climate crisis and urgent domestic needs.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this profoundly undemocratic, paternalistic resolution. The House of Representatives, in which the nearly 700,000 District of Columbia residents have no voting representation, is attempting to nullify legislation enacted by D.C.'s local legislature, whose members are elected by D.C. residents.

By scheduling this vote, I can only conclude that the Republican leadership believes that D.C. residents, a majority of whom are Black and Brown, are unworthy of governing themselves.

The dictionary defines democracy as ``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 this 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 this disapproval resolution, should be irrelevant since there is never justification for Congress nullifying legislation enacted by the District of Columbia.

I would like to set the record straight. 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.

D.C.'s Comprehensive Policing and Justice 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; require the release of the names and body-worn camera recordings of officers directly involved in an officer-involved death or serious use of force; strengthen civilian oversight of police; establish a public database of sustained allegations of officer misconduct; make officer disciplinary records subject to release under the D.C. Freedom of Information Act; and prohibit choke holds and asphyxiating restraints.

Congress requires D.C.'s local legislature, the D.C. Council, to pass the permanent version of legislation twice, separated by at least 13 days. The Council passed the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 by votes of 11-0 and 13-0. While the legislation was enacted without the D.C. Mayor's signature, the Mayor has urged Congress to oppose this disapproval resolution.

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 the 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. D.C. residents cannot consent to any action taken by Congress, whether they are national or local matters, and they pay full Federal taxes. Indeed, D.C. pays more Federal taxes per capita than any State, and more total Federal taxes than 23 States.

Mr. Speaker, I say to every Member of Congress: Keep your hands off D.C. If you want to legislate on local D.C. matters, become a D.C. resident and get elected Mayor or councilmember.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I would like to respond to something that was said on the other side of the aisle.

Both public- and private-sector employers across the country have had difficulty recruiting and retaining employees in recent years. In fact, the difficulty law enforcement agencies across the country have with recruitment and retention predate the police reforms enacted after the killing of George Floyd.

Prior to the killing of George Floyd, a 2019 survey conducted by the International Association of Chiefs of Police found that ``the challenge of recruiting law enforcement is widespread and affects agencies of all types, sizes, and locations across the United States.''

The survey also found that ``the difficulty in recruiting law enforcement officers and employees is not due to one particular cause. Rather, multiple social, political, and economic forces are all simultaneously at play.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this rule. I will have more to say tomorrow about the police accountability and transparency legislation enacted by the District of Columbia's local legislature, but I want to take this time to discuss democratic principles.

It is true that Congress has the constitutional authority to legislate on our local D.C. matters, but it is false that Congress has a constitutional duty, obligation, or responsibility to do so. Instead, legislating on local D.C. matters is a choice.

I remind my Republican colleagues, who claim to revere the Founders, what James Madison said in Federalist 43 about the residents of the Federal District: ``A municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them.''

The Supreme Court has held that Congress may delegate ``full legislative power'' on local D.C. matters.

D.C. disapproval resolutions are profoundly undemocratic and paternalistic legislation.

D.C.'s local legislature, 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 down. This is called democracy.

Congress has 535 voting Members. The Members are elected by residents of the States. None are elected by or accountable to D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how the Members vote--even on legislation that applies only to D.C.--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 nearly 700,000 D.C. residents cannot consent to any action taken by Congress, whether on national or local D.C. matters, while paying full Federal taxes. Indeed, D.C. pays more Federal taxes per capita than any State and more total Federal taxes than 23 States.

If the House cared about democratic principles or D.C. residents, it would be voting on my statehood bill, the Washington, D.C., Admission Act, instead. Congress has the constitutional authority to admit the State of Washington, D.C. The House is choosing not to. It is a choice.

Mr. Speaker, I will close by saying to all Members of the House: Keep your hands off of D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Admiral Cecil D. Haney for his distinguished 38-year career in the United States Navy. Admiral Haney blazed a trail as the first Black four-star submariner, the first Black Pacific Fleet commander, the first Black Strategic Command commander and the second Black four-star admiral in the history of the Navy.

Admiral Haney graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1978. He holds a master's degree in Engineering Acoustics and System Technology from the Naval Post Graduate School and a master's degree in National Security Strategy from the National Defense University.

Admiral Haney received the Navy Distinguished Service Medal twice, the Defense Superior Service Medal three times, the Legion of Merit four times, the Navy Commendation Medal three times and the Navy Achievement Medal twice. Most recently, the United States Naval Academy Alumni Association honored him with the 2023 Distinguished Graduate Award.

Since his retirement from the Navy, in 2016, Admiral Haney has served in leadership roles for multiple organizations, including the Aerospace Corporation, General Dynamics, Tenet Healthcare and Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. He is chairman of the Board of Directors for the Military Child Education Coalition. Admiral Haney has also served as a Blue and Gold Officer assisting applicants from predominantly underserved communities and currently serves as Naval Academy Foundation Board of Directors vice chairman. He is also on my Service Academy Selection Board.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to recognize Admiral Cecil Haney for his trailblazing career in the Navy and his incredible work in preparing the next generation of service members.

Mr. Speaker, on April 7th, I introduced a bill that would direct the Secretary of Transportation to submit a report to Congress containing recommendations on how to reduce helicopter noise in the District of Columbia. Recommendations would include altitude, number of flights, flight paths, time of day of flights, types of aircraft, operating procedures and pilot training. The Secretary would be required to consult with any federal agencies or departments that fly helicopters in D.C., the Metropolitan Police Department, any medical helicopter operators that routinely fly in D.C. and any other operator that routinely flies a helicopter in D.C. The report would be due to Congress no later than 180 days after the enactment of the bill.

Even though D.C. has the most restricted airspace in the country, I hear from D.C. residents almost daily about the negative impact of helicopter noise on their lives. The noise can harm health and quality of life, and helicopters can even harm the structural integrity of homes. While I recognize the need for helicopters in D.C., the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Congress must do more to mitigate the harm to D.C. residents.

In 2019, I led members of the National Capital Region (NCR) in requesting that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) study helicopter noise in the NCR. In 2021, GAO issued its report. GAO found that there had been nearly 90,000 helicopter flights in the NCR from 2017 to 2019. GAO recommended that the FAA develop a mechanism to exchange helicopter noise information with operators in the NCR. The FAA has indicated it is establishing such a mechanism. In February, I introduced the Reducing Helicopter Noise in the District of Columbia Act, which would require all helicopters in D.C. to fly at the maximum altitude permitted by the FAA in D.C., with limited exceptions.

I urge my colleagues to support both bills.

Mr. Chair, the so-called ``Lower Energy Costs Act'' is an attempt by the majority to strip environmental protections fought for by Congress over decades. The current leadership wishes to allow broad polluting, strip limitations on greenhouse gas emissions, and remove provisions of the Clean Water Act that not only protect our Nation's waters, but also affect the clean drinking water of everyday Americans.

Division C, the Water Quality Certification and Energy Project Improvement Act, will neither improve energy projects nor streamline the water quality certification process.

This section guts the Clean Water Act section 401 authority. The previous administration tried to significantly limit this authority in the interest of preventing oversight and accountability for those who polluted water sources. Now the majority is, again, attempting to gut this critical protection

authority in favor of unclear, imprecise, and irresponsible policy, which would allow significant increases in water pollution without holding polluters accountable.

This issue is particularly important to the District of Columbia because we are entirely reliant on the Potomac River for our drinking water. Under this bill, the headwaters of the Potomac River can be freely polluted in West Virginia, jeopardizing the water source of most of Northern Virginia, all of D.C., and much of southern Maryland.

We are no strangers to this kind of pollution. Before the Clean Water Act, the Potomac River was rife with agricultural runoff, trash, and other pollution. But today it is a much cleaner and healthier river and used for all manner of recreational activities. This bill would jeopardize all the progress we have made for the entire Potomac River ecosystem.

Under this bill, a project could threaten water quality, water supply, fish populations, or many other things, and D.C. and other jurisdictions would not get any say in preventing it. Polluters can act freely and to the extreme detriment of their neighbors downstream, affecting the accessibility of clean water.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the District of Columbia Code Returning Citizens Coordination Act, which would require the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to provide information to the District of Columbia government on individuals convicted of felonies under D.C. law in BOP custody. Currently, BOP provides no information to D.C. on these individuals, even immediately before release, which inhibits reentry, increases recidivism and harms public safety. Last Congress, the Committee on Oversight and Reform passed this bill.

Federal law requires BOP to incarcerate individuals convicted of felonies under D.C. law. There are currently 3,200 such individuals in BOP custody, and they are located in prisons throughout the United States. This unique custody arrangement creates several obstacles to successful reentry, including information sharing among agencies.

BOP asserts that federal privacy laws prohibit it from providing any information to D.C. on these individuals, which prevents D.C. from having services ready for them when they return from prison. Yet, studies consistently show the importance of health care, housing, education, job training and substance use disorder treatment for successful reentry.

This bill would require BOP to provide D.C. 2 types of information on each individual convicted of a D.C. Code felony in BOP custody. Every 90 days, BOP would provide the name, age, Federal Register Number, facility where housed and the scheduled release date. Upon D.C.'s request, BOP would provide D.C. the same information that BOP provides to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA) on these individuals, such as their release plan. CSOSA is a federal agency that supervises individuals convicted of D.C. Code felonies on supervised release and parole.

D.C. would be allowed to provide the biographical information only to counsel for the individuals, and to organizations that provide legal representation to individuals in criminal or post-conviction matters, or in matters related to reentry. D.C. would not be allowed to provide any of the other information, and D.C. law enforcement agencies would not have access to any of the information.

The overwhelming majority of people in prison return home. I hope everyone agrees on the importance of successful reentry.

I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, March 14th is Equal Pay Day, marking the number of additional days a woman must work to earn what a man earned the prior year. The 1963 Equal Pay Act (EPA), the first of the great civil rights statutes of the 1960s, has grown creaky with age and needs updating to reflect the new workforce, in which women work as much as men.

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 workers were paid a dollar less per hour for doing the same or similar work as male workers. 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.

My own experience as the first woman to chair the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission afforded me the opportunity to enforce the EPA. However, if women are to get equal pay, they need the Fair Pay Act (FPA). I again 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. Much of the wage inequality women experience today is because of employer-steering and deeply rooted wage stereotypes, which result in wages paid according to gender and not according to the skill necessary to do the job. I introduce the FPA because the pay disparity most women face today stems mainly from the segregation of women and men in different jobs and paying women in female-dominated jobs systematically less. Almost half of American women work in just three areas: sales/clerical, service and factories. We need more aggressive strategies to break through the societal barriers present throughout history the world over, as well as employer-steering based on gender, which is as old as paid employment itself.

The FPA would require that if men and women are doing comparable work, they must be paid comparable wages. If a woman, for example, is an emergency services operator, a female-dominated profession, she should not be paid less than a fire dispatcher, a male-dominated profession, simply because each of these jobs has been dominated by one gender. If a woman is a social worker, a traditionally female occupation, she should not earn less than a probation officer, a traditionally male job, simply because of the gender associated with each of these jobs.

The FPA would not tamper with the legal burden. Under the FPA, 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.

In addition, many female workers achieve pay equity through collective bargaining, and countless employers provide it on their own as they see women shifting out of vital female-dominated occupations as a result of the shortage of skilled workers, as well as because of the unfairness to women. Unequal pay has been built into the way women have been treated since Adam and Eve. To dislodge such deep-seated and pervasive treatment, we must go to the source, the traditionally female occupations, where pay is linked with gender and always has been.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Pay Equity for All Act of 2023, which would help reduce the gender and racial pay gap by prohibiting employers from asking job applicants for their salary history before making a job or salary offer. Even though many employers may not intentionally discriminate against applicants or employees based on gender, race or ethnicity, setting wages based on salary history can reinforce the wage gap. Members of historically disadvantaged groups often start their careers with unfair and artificially low wages compared to their white male counterparts, and the disparities are compounded from job to job throughout their careers. In the last two Congresses, the House has passed this bill as part of the Paycheck Fairness Act.

This bill would help ensure that salaries are based on skills and merit, not on salary history, by assessing penalties against employers that ask applicants for their salary history during the interview process or as a condition of employment. It would also provide job applicants and employees with a private right of action against employers that violate these provisions.

There is much work to be done to address the wage gap. This bill would be an important step in reducing the wage gap.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

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

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

I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.