Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a resolution to amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to require every Member, officer and employee of the House of Representatives to receive medical emergency preparedness training, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and the use of an automated external defibrillator (AED). Requiring all Members and staff to be trained in medical emergency preparedness would help ensure that care is immediately available to those in the Capitol Complex experiencing a medical emergency.

Individuals trained in medical emergency preparedness can provide vital care during medical emergencies. When Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was wounded during a 2011 mass shooting, Daniel Hernandez Jr., her 20-year-old college intern, provided Giffords with lifesaving CPR.

When responding to a medical emergency, every second counts. For example, immediate CPR and the use of an AED can make a critical difference for those experiencing cardiac arrest. CPR can double or triple the chance of surviving a cardiac arrest, and the survival rate of cardiac arrest decreases by ten percent for every minute that defibrillation is delayed.

Millions of Americans saw the value of CPR and the use of an AED during the Buffalo Bills football game on January 2, 2023, when Bills player Damar Hamlin suffered cardiac arrest during the game. Team personnel performed CPR and used an AED on Hamlin, likely saving his life.

Staff from the Office of the Attending Physician and Capitol Police officers, while trained in medical emergency intervention, are not always immediately available in a medical emergency. Widespread training in CPR and the use of AEDs can help save lives during medical emergencies in the Capitol Complex.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board Inspector General Act of 2023, which would create an independent Inspector General (IG) for the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB). The FRTIB administers the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), the retirement savings and investment plan for federal employees.

On June 1, 2022, the FRTIB launched a new system with the goal of modernizing TSP's recordkeeping, improving customer service and bolstering cybersecurity. There have been widespread problems with the new system, including account access, account balances, missing or incomplete information in accounts and hours-long wait times to reach customer service. While many problems have been fixed, problems remain.

As of December 2022, TSP had approximately 6.8 million participants and $765,154,000,000 in assets, making it the world's largest defined contribution plan. Federal employees dedicate their careers to serving our country, and they deserve a retirement savings and investment plan that provides top-tier customer support and security.

While the Employee Benefits Security Administration has oversight responsibility for TSP, as it does for private sector 401(k) plans, there is currently no IG for the FRTIB. The problems with the new TSP system are evidence enough that the FRTIB needs an independent IG.

I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the closing days of Black History Month to recognize a professional golfer from the District of Columbia.

Marcus Byrd picked up his clubs at the First Tee of Greater Washington, D.C. at the historic Langston Golf Course in Northeast, honing his skills there and at a number of golf courses in nearby Prince George's County. He finished in 2nd place at the Maryland State High School Golf Championship in his freshman year. Shortly after, his family moved to Atlanta, Georgia. In 2013, he won the Georgia State Junior Championship and colleges began to take notice. Mr. Byrd earned a college golf scholarship to Middle Tennessee State University and quickly became one of the best players on the team. After a standout college career, Mr. Byrd turned professional in 2020. He is currently competing on the Advocates Professional Golf Association Tour (APGA), which is aimed at increasing diversity in the sport. Mr. Byrd has two wins and five

second place finishes on the APGA since 2021. Tiger Woods awarded Mr. Byrd with the Charlie Sifford Memorial Exemption into the PGA Tour's Genesis Invitational in Los Angeles earlier this month. Mr. Byrd received an exemption into the PGA Tour's Honda Classic in Florida last week.

While he no longer lives permanently in the District of Columbia, Mr. Byrd returns to the area to make a positive impact on young people. He has given back to the First Tee of Greater Washington, D.C. by participating in multiple Politics and Pros events and by conducting clinics for young participants.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to recognize Marcus Byrd for his success in professional golf.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Reducing Helicopter Noise in the District of Columbia Act, which would require all helicopters and rotocraft in the District of Columbia to fly at the maximum altitude permitted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in D.C., with limited exceptions. The exceptions would include active law enforcement and rescue operations, transporting the president and vice president and safety.

I hear from D.C. residents almost daily about helicopter noise. Helicopter noise can harm health, quality of life and the structural integrity of homes. 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. Last year, 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 that it is working on such a mechanism.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce the Albert Pike Statue Removal Act, which would require the permanent removal of the statue of Confederate General Albert Pike from federal land near Judiciary Square in the District of Columbia, which was illegally torn down in 2020 and is in storage. The bill also would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to donate the statue to a museum or similar entity. In the 116th Congress, the House Committee on Natural Resources passed this bill by voice vote. This bill is part of a series of statue and memorial removal bills I am introducing during Black History Month.

This statue, which was dedicated in 1901, was constructed using both federal and private funds. The Freemasons, of which Pike was a member, donated the majority of the money needed to build and install the statue.

I oppose destroying Confederate statues, because I believe they should be moved to more appropriate settings, like museums, to avoid erasing an important part of history from which Americans must continue to learn. Pike, a Confederate general who served dishonorably and was forced to resign in disgrace, represents the worst of the Confederacy. Soldiers under his command were found to have mutilated the bodies of Union soldiers, and he was ultimately imprisoned after his fellow Confederate officers reported that he had been misappropriating funds. Adding to the dishonor of taking up arms against the United States, Pike dishonored even his Confederate military service. He certainly has absolutely no claim to be memorialized in the Nation's capital. Even those who do not want Confederate statues removed will have to justify affording Pike any honor considering his dishonorable history.

After meeting with the Freemasons, I believe the best course of action is to remove the statue and find a more appropriate place for it. Given the statue's divisive nature, the Freemasons themselves support the statue's removal.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce the Francis G. Newlands Memorial Removal Act, which would remove the plaque and inscriptions on a fountain bearing Francis G. Newlands' name from Chevy Chase Circle, a federal park located both in the District of Columbia and Maryland. I am pleased Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland joins me in introducing this bill. This bill is part of a series of statue and memorial removal bills I am introducing during Black History Month.

Newlands was a U.S. senator from Nevada, a conservationist and the founder of the Chevy Chase Land Company, which developed the Chevy Chase neighborhood that touches D.C. and Maryland. Newlands was also a segregationist. He built Connecticut Avenue and ran a streetcar up the road to the newly built Chevy Chase Lake. However, homes on Connecticut Avenue were purposely priced to keep working families out, and covenants were later added to many of the property deeds in Chevy Chase explicitly prohibiting the land from ever being owned by African Americans or Jews. These covenants have since been declared void.

Newlands went further to keep Black and white Americans separate. In the late 1800s, he and Senator William Stewart secured 2,000 acres of land for Rock Creek Park. Establishing this park not only increased property values for landowners like Newlands and Stewart, but also kept white communities distinct from emerging Black communities on what they called the ``wrong side of the park.'' Newlands' racist views went even further. In 1912, he called for the repeal of the 15th amendment, which gave African American men the right to vote.

The fountain in Chevy Chase Circle was established in 1932 by Congress. In 1990, the Chevy Chase Land Company added a plaque with Newlands' name next to the fountain. A resolution to remove Newlands' name from the fountain was first introduced by the D.C. Chevy Chase Advisory Neighborhood Commission in 2014. On July 27, 2020, the commission voted unanimously to ask the National Park Service to remove the plaque bearing Newlands' name and to begin discussion on a new name for the fountain. On September 14, 2020, the Maryland Chevy Chase Village Board of Managers adopted a resolution calling on NPS and Congress to strip any mention of Newlands from the fountain. And on April 19, 2022, Montgomery County Council introduced a resolution affirming the county's support for this bill.

I believe NPS has the administrative authority to remove Newlands' name from the fountain, given that the memorial's authorizing statue does not name Senator Newlands nor dedicate the memorial to him. Last Congress, I wrote a letter with Representative Jamie Raskin and Senators Chris Van Hollen and Ben Cardin urging NPS to use their existing authority to remove or conceal Newlands' name, and they have not done so. This bill would remove Newlands' name from the fountain and remove the plaque entirely.

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 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 either unworthy or incapable 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 Congress and Congress' plenary authority over D.C. are the antithesis of democracy.

I remind House Republicans that they once professed support for local control of local affairs. Their fiscal year 2016 budget said this: ``America is a diverse Nation. Our cities, States, and local communities are best equipped and naturally inclined to develop solutions that will serve their populations, but far too often local leaders are limited by numerous Federal dictates.''

The legislative history and merits of the legislation enacted by the District of Columbia that are the subject of this resolution are irrelevant to the consideration of this resolution, since there is never justification for Congress nullifying legislation enacted by the District, but I would like to set the record straight.

The Revised Criminal Code Act comprehensively revises D.C.'s criminal code, which has not been done since it was created in 1901. Everyone in the D.C. legal system agrees that such a revision is long overdue. The bill is the product of over a decade of work by D.C. to create a modern, comprehensive, systematic criminal code. A majority of States, both red and blue, have adopted such a code.

In 2016, D.C. enacted legislation establishing an independent agency, the Criminal Code Reform Commission, to recommend a new criminal code. The Commission, which consisted of nonpartisan experts, drafted the Revised Criminal Code Act over nearly 5 years in a fully public process. The voting members of the Commission's advisory group, including the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, unanimously approved transmitting the bill to the D.C. Council and the Mayor.

The D.C. Council held three hearings on this bill. The council, as required by Congress, passed the bill on two separate occasions by votes of 12-0 and 13-0. The Mayor vetoed the bill. The council overrode the veto by a vote of 12-1. The provisions of the bill do not take effect until October 1, 2025, at the earliest.

I say to every Member of Congress: Keep your hands off D.C.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about crime in D.C., so I think it is fair to ask: How do the Revised Criminal Code Act penalties compare to the penalties in the States, the States represented in this House? I will cite a few examples from Kentucky, Chairman Comer's home State.

The Revised Criminal Code Act has a higher mandatory minimum penalty for murder one than Kentucky.

The Revised Criminal Code Act has a higher maximum penalty for involuntary manslaughter and unarmed robbery than Kentucky.

How about armed and unarmed carjacking? The Revised Criminal Code Act has specific armed and unarmed carjacking crimes. Kentucky does not.

The Revised Criminal Code Act maximum penalty for armed carjacking is higher than for first degree robbery in Kentucky. The Revised Criminal Code Act maximum penalty for unarmed carjacking is higher than for unarmed robbery in Kentucky.

How about felony murder? The Revised Criminal Code Act has a maximum sentence of 20 years with a maximum of 30 years for aggravating factors. Kentucky abolished felony murder.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from more than 100 groups led by D.C. Vote calling on Congress to keep its hands off of

Mr. Speaker, I would like to cite examples of increased maximum penalties in D.C. You can't call D.C. soft on crime.

For example, nonconsensual sexual conduct, which is the most commonly charged sex event, current maximum, 6 months. New maximum, 2 years.

Attempted murder, current maximum, 5 years. New maximum, 23.5 years.

Attempted sexual assault, current maximum, 5 years. New maximum, 15 years.

Threats to do bodily harm, current maximum, 6 months. New maximum, 2 years.

Possession of a machine gun, sawed-off gun, or ghost gun, current maximum, 1 year. New maximum, 4 years.

It increases the maximum penalties for misdemeanor and felony assault on a police officer.

I would like to cite examples of new crimes. Negligent homicide, maximum penalty is 4 years. The current law does not criminalize negligently causing the death of another, except by operating a vehicle.

Reckless endangerment with a firearm. The maximum penalty is 2 years for firing a gun in public, even if the gun is not aimed at anyone or any property.

I urge the Members to look at how the D.C. Council has enhanced penalties, not reduced them, making this city safer for everyone.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce the Andrew Jackson Statue Removal Act, which would remove the Andrew Jackson statue from Lafayette Park, a federal park in the District of Columbia, and require the Secretary of the Interior to donate the statue to a museum or similar entity. This bill is part of a series of statue and memorial removal bills I am introducing during Black History Month.

The land that comprises Lafayette Park has been used as a racetrack, a showplace for caged animals, a graveyard, a market where enslaved people were sold, an encampment for soldiers and for political protests and celebrations. Jackson was an enslaver and signed a law that forced Native Americans to move west of the Mississippi River. During this forced expulsion by the federal government, roughly 4,000 Cherokee died in what is now known as the Trail of Tears.

The statue, the first in Lafayette Park, was dedicated on January 8, 1853, on the 38th anniversary of the Battle of New Orleans, which the statue depicts. This prominent location in the Nation's capital, right outside of the White House, should never have honored a man who was an unabashed racist, owned enslaved people and authorized the genocide of Native Americans. Jackson's entire tenure is a shameful part of our history and should not be honored with a statue in Lafayette Park.

This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to ensure the removal of the statue from Lafayette Park and to donate the statue and marble base to a museum or similar entity so that the statue can be accompanied by the appropriate historical context. The next generation can learn from this painful chapter in our history without celebrating it.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

I strongly oppose this undemocratic, paternalistic resolution. There is only one question before this House. The question is: Do you believe in democracy?

More specifically: Should the District of Columbia's local legislature, whose members are elected by D.C. residents, make the laws for D.C., or should Congress, whose voting Members are elected by the residents of the several States, make laws for D.C.?

What is democracy?

The dictionary defines it 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.''

Perhaps President Lincoln described democracy best in the Gettysburg Address when he said that it is government of the people, by the people, for the people.

D.C.'s local legislature, the D.C. Council, has 13 members. The members are elected by D.C. residents. Eight members are elected by geographical area, and five members are elected at-large. If D.C. residents do not like how the members vote, then they can vote them out of office.

Congress has 535 voting Members. The Members are elected by residents of the several States. None are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how the Members vote, even on legislation that applies only to D.C., they can only ask politely for the residents of the several States to vote them out of office.

The Revolutionary War was fought to give consent to the governed and to end taxation without representation. Yet, the nearly 700,000 D.C. residents cannot consent to any action taken by Congress, whether on national or D.C. matters, and they pay full Federal taxes. Indeed, D.C. residents pay more Federal taxes per capita than any State in the Union and more total Federal taxes than 23 States.

The legislative history and merits of this legislation enacted by the D.C. Council that is the subject matter of this resolution are irrelevant to the question before the House, but I do want to set the record straight.

The D.C. Council passed the legislation on two separate occasions, as required by Congress, by votes of 12-1 and 12-0 after holding a hearing. The legislation is not unprecedented. Indeed, there is a long history in the United States of noncitizens being allowed to vote in local, State, territorial, and Federal elections.

I will close with two final thoughts. D.C. residents, a majority of whom are Black and Brown, are worthy and capable of governing themselves. It is true Congress has absolute power over D.C., but might does not make right.

Mr. Speaker, if you believe in democracy, you will vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding the time because I have something important to say and to put into the Record.

Forty States have permitted noncitizens to vote at various points. One of them is the State of the gentlewoman who has just spoken, Colorado. The

other States are: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington State, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

At least 14 municipalities permit noncitizens to vote today. Eleven in Maryland: Barnesville, Cheverly, Chevy Chase section 3, Garrett Park, Glen Echo, Hyattsville, Martin's Additions, Mount Rainier, Riverdale Park, Somerset, and Takoma Park.

Two in Vermont: Montpelier and Winooski.

One in California. San Francisco allows voting for noncitizens who are a parent or legal guardian of a child living in San Francisco to vote in local school board elections.

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

Since the colonial era, African Americans have served the United States in times of war. While African American men served in the Navy since its establishment, there was resistance to enlisting them to take up arms for the Union Army at the start of the Civil War. It was not until January 1, 1863, when President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, that the Union Army was ordered to receive African American men. On May 22, 1863, the United States War Department issued General Order Number 143, which established the Bureau of Colored Troops for the recruitment and organization of regiments of the Union Army composed of African American men, called the United States Colored Troops (USCT). Leaders such as Frederick Douglass encouraged African Americans to enlist to advance the cause of citizenship: ``Once let the [B]lack man get upon his person the brass letter, `U.S.', let him get an eagle on his button, and a musket on his shoulder and bullets in his pocket, there is no power on [E]arth that can deny that he has earned the right to citizenship,'' wrote Douglass.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

I strongly oppose this rule. This rule would allow the House to consider two resolutions that would nullify two bills recently enacted by the District of Columbia's local legislature, the D.C. Council. These are profoundly undemocratic, paternalistic resolutions.

The House, in which the nearly 700,000 D.C. residents have no voting representation, is attempting to nullify a bill enacted by the D.C. Council, whose members are elected by and accountable to D.C. residents.

What is democracy? The dictionary defines it 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.''

Perhaps President Lincoln described democracy best in the Gettysburg Address as ``government of the people, by the people, and for the people.''

The D.C. Council has 13 members. The members are elected by D.C. residents. Eight members are elected by geographical area and five members are elected at-large. If D.C. residents do not like how the members vote, they can vote them out of office.

Congress has 535 Members. The Members are elected by residents of the several States. None are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how Members vote, even on legislation that applies to the District of Columbia, such as the two disapproval resolutions, they can ask politely for residents of the several States to vote Members 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 D.C. matters, and pay full Federal taxes. Indeed, D.C. residents pay more Federal taxes per capita than any State and more Federal taxes than 23 States.

Instead of abusing its power by nullifying legislation enacted by the D.C. Council, the House should adhere to democratic principles and pass my D.C. statehood bill, which would give D.C. residents voting representation in Congress and full control over its local affairs.

I will have more to say on these undemocratic, paternalistic resolutions during floor debate on them on Thursday; but I will say to all Members of the House now: Keep your hands off of the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, today, I, along with Representative Donald S. Beyer, Jr., introduce the Federal Police Camera and Accountability Act of 2023. This bill would require uniformed federal law enforcement officers to wear body cameras and marked federal law enforcement vehicles to have dashboard cameras. It would also require the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study on federal law enforcement officers' training, vehicle pursuits, use of force and interaction with citizens. In the last two Congresses, we introduced virtually identical bills, which were included in the House-passed George Floyd Justice in Policing Act both Congresses.

After the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, the urgency of this bill has become even more apparent. The U.S. Capitol Police tried to stop the mob attack, but since Capitol Police officers do not wear body cameras, we have been forced to rely on social media, cameras in and around the Capitol, body cameras worn by Metropolitan Police Department officers and public reporting to learn what happened. The events at Lafayette Square in 2020, where U.S. Park Police and other federal police officers forcibly removed peaceful protestors so the president could hold a photo op, is another recent example of why our bill is needed.

We first introduced this bill after Bijan Ghaisar was fatally shot on November 17, 2017, in his car by uniformed U.S. Park Police officers in Fairfax County, Virginia, after a vehicle pursuit on the George Washington Memorial Parkway. Video of this shooting only

became available through a camera in a Fairfax County Police Department patrol car that was providing backup. Had it not been for that footage, which was recorded and released by that local police department, the public would not have had access to the circumstances surrounding Mr. Ghaisar's death. Moreover, the footage revealed concerns about the Park Police's pursuit and engagement policies.

Body and dashboard cameras for federal law enforcement officers are particularly important for the officers stationed in the nation's capital, where the Park Police and the uniformed division of the U.S. Secret Service have full local police powers. Many other federal law enforcement agencies also have local police powers near their respective agency buildings in the District of Columbia. Cameras can increase transparency for individual interactions with police, strengthen public trust and even deter future criminal behavior. For example, when individuals know that they are being recorded by a dashboard camera, they may be less likely to flee the scene of a traffic accident because they realize that their license plate will be documented. Individuals may also be less likely to attack an officer because the recording may be used as evidence. On the other hand, officers will also be less likely to commit offenses for the same reason. Body and dashboard cameras can also be used to train current and future officers more effectively in best and worst practices.

An increasing number of local police departments, including the Metropolitan Police Department in the District, are using body and dashboard cameras. It is clear that both law enforcement and the public would benefit from federal police departments following suit to increase transparency and maintain public trust.

Last year, President Biden issued an executive order (E.O.) requiring federal law enforcement agencies use body cameras, adopt and publicly post body camera policies and expedite release of video footage to the public following incidents involving serious bodily injury or deaths while an individual is in custody. This is a positive first step. Our bill is necessary, however, because the E.O. is more limited in scope than the bill, including that the E.O. does not require dashboard cameras and the U.S. Capitol Police and Supreme Court Police are not required to use any cameras. Additionally, the executive order can be undone by a future president, whereas this bill would enshrine these rules into law, requiring a future Congress and president acting together through subsequent legislation to overturn them.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Police Home Rule Act, which would repeal the president's authority to federalize the local District of Columbia Police Department, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). The president has no authority to federalize any other local or state police department. Senator Chris Van Hollen is the sponsor of the companion bill in the Senate.

Under the D.C. Home Rule Act, ``whenever the President . . . determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the [MPD] for Federal purposes, he may direct the Mayor to provide him, and the Mayor shall provide, such services of the [MPD] as the President may deem necessary and appropriate.'' The president may federalize MPD for a period of not more than 30 days, unless a resolution passed by Congress extending such federalization is enacted into law. Congress may also terminate the federalization at any time by enacting a resolution into law. This bill is necessary, even with these limitations on the president's federalization authority, because, under the principle of self-government, the president should not have control over D.C.'s local police department.

While it does not appear that a president has exercised this authority over MPD, this latent power is totally unnecessary, should not exist and is an affront to MPD, which has always voluntarily assisted federal authorities. Given the events at Lafayette Square on June I, 2020, it is imperative that no president be allowed to federalize MPD. Although the Trump Administration did not federalize MPD at that time, the administration attempted to do so, and D.C. officials successfully fought back. MPD's first responsibility is to protect D.C. residents and visitors, and it must always remain under the authority of the D.C. Mayor to accomplish its mission. Moreover, federalization is outdated in light of current practice. MPD regularly assists the federal government as a matter of comity, not as an arm of the federal government, just as other local police departments do in the region and across the country. There are approximately 30 federal police departments under the president's control in D.C. In the case of a federal emergency, the president can unilaterally deploy these federal officers, as well as the D.C. National Guard, and can also request the support of MPD, as the Capitol Police did during the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. The House's Fiscal Year 2022 and 2023 D.C. Appropriations Bills blocked the president from carrying out the federalization provision.

This is an important step to increase home rule for D.C., and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia National Guard Home Rule Act, which would give the Mayor of the District of Columbia control over the D.C. National Guard. Senator Chris Van Hollen is the sponsor of the companion bill in the Senate.

The governors of the states and territories control their National Guards while the president controls the D.C. National Guard. This bill would give the D.C. Mayor the same control over the D.C. National Guard that the governors of the states and territories have over their National Guards. The president would have the same authority to federalize the D.C. National Guard that the president has to federalize the National Guards of the states and territories.

The attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, and the events at Lafayette Square on June 1, 2020, are prime examples of why the D.C. Mayor should control the D.C. National Guard. On January 6th, the Trump Administration delayed deploying the D.C. National Guard to the Capitol for several hours, likely costing lives and prolonging the attack. At Lafayette Square, the Trump Administration used the D.C. National Guard to forcibly remove peaceful protestors for a presidential photo op.

Governors generally deploy the National Guard for natural disasters and civil disturbances. The D.C. Mayor, who knows D.C. better than any federal official, should be able to deploy the D.C. National Guard for natural disasters and civil disturbances, too. In the event of a large- scale attack on a federal facility in D.C., the D.C. Mayor would almost certainly deploy the D.C. National Guard to protect the facility. However, in the unlikely event that the D.C. Mayor did not do so, the president would have the authority to federalize and deploy the D.C. National Guard to do so. This is no different from the division of authority today between a governor and the president in the event of a large-scale attack on a federal facility in a state or territory.

Moreover, presidential control over the D.C. National Guard creates a loophole in the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the military's involvement in civilian law enforcement. The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel has opined that when the D.C. National Guard is operating for non-federal purposes, even though it is an exclusively federal entity, it may be used for civilian law enforcement without violating the Posse Comitatus Act.

Last Congress, the House passed this bill as part of the fiscal year (FY) 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the FY 2023

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce the Emancipation Statue Removal Act, which would remove the Emancipation Statue from Lincoln Park, a federal park in the District of Columbia, and require the Secretary of the Interior to donate the statue to a museum or similar entity. This bill is part of a series of statue and memorial removal bills I am introducing during Black History Month.

The Emancipation Statue was dedicated on April 14, 1876, the 11th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln's assassination. Although formerly enslaved Americans paid for this statue, it was designed and sculpted without their input, and it shows. The paternalistic

statue depicting a Black man on his knees in front of President Lincoln fails to recognize African Americans' agency in pressing for their own emancipation.

Understandably, recently liberated African Americans during the Reconstruction era were grateful for any recognition of their freedom in a country where they still experienced virtually total exclusion from American life. However, even at the time of its unveiling, prominent Black Americans expressed their displeasure with the statue's design, including Frederick Douglass. During his keynote address at the statue's unveiling, Douglass pointedly did not praise the statue. Rather, in a letter to the editor of the National Republican a few days after the unveiling, Douglass expressed his dismay at the statue: ``The negro here, though rising, is still on his knees and nude. What I want to see before I die is a monument representing the negro, not couchant on his knees like a four-footed animal, but erect on his feet like a man.''

In 2020, Boston removed its replica of the statue and plans to place it in a publicly accessible location where it can be better contextualized. It is time for Congress to place the original statue in a museum, too.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.