Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank Chair Graves and Ranking Member Larsen for bringing this important bill to the floor.

This bill would revoke the independent real estate leasing authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission and direct the Government Accountability Office to update its 2016 report on independent real estate leasing authority in the Federal Government. The House passed this bill last Congress.

While a number of Federal agencies have independent real estate leasing authority, the SEC has a history of egregious real estate practices.

In 2005, the SEC disclosed that it had unbudgeted costs of approximately $48 million for the construction of its headquarters near Union Station.

In 2007, after moving into headquarters, the SEC shuffled its employees to different office space at a cost of over $3 million without any cost-benefit analysis or justifiable explanation.

In 2010, the SEC conducted a deeply flawed analysis to justify the need to lease 900,000 square feet and to commit over $500 million over 10 years, overestimating its space needs by over 300 percent. In addition, the SEC failed to provide complete and accurate information and prepared a faulty and backdated justification and approval after it had already signed the lease.

In August 2016, the General Services Administration and the SEC entered into an occupancy agreement to authorize GSA to secure a new 15-year lease.

In December 2016, GSA, with the approval of SEC, submitted a prospectus to Congress for approximately 1.3 million square feet, which Congress approved in 2018.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me more time.

By July 2019, GSA had received final bids, resolved all protests, and even selected a final bidder. A month later, the SEC canceled the occupancy agreement, citing concerns about the value of the purchase option, which SEC refused to document to Congress. The SEC effectively vetoed the entire 3-year procurement process despite not having the authority or funding to exercise the purchase option without GSA's involvement.

Finally, after much back and forth between the two agencies, GSA entered into a lease agreement for a new SEC headquarters in September 2021. The SEC says it will continue to have GSA do its leasing in the future, but the SEC's history of egregious leasing conduct, having squandered hundreds of millions of dollars, makes this bill necessary.

These public blunders also risk undermining the reputation of GSA and the Federal Government among developers and building owners who participate in Federal lease procurements. The threat of uncertainty ultimately drives up the cost of all GSA real estate procurements.

It is time for Congress to return the SEC's leasing authority to GSA, the Federal Government's civilian real estate arm. As the SEC has demonstrated over three decades, it is incredibly inefficient, wasteful, and redundant to have the SEC involved in real estate procurements when GSA exists for that very reason.

Like other Federal agencies, the SEC will continue to have input with the GSA and involvement in the real estate decision-making process, but GSA would have the ultimate authority.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Courts Judicial Vacancy Reduction Act. This bill would expedite the appointment of local D.C. judges. The sole purpose of this bill is to protect public safety and promote justice by ending the perpetual judicial vacancy crisis in the local D.C. courts.

The longstanding judicial vacancy crisis in the local D.C. courts, which delays resolution of criminal and civil cases, has existed regardless of which party controls the presidency and Senate because presidents and senators are, understandably, more focused on nominees to the federal courts and the executive branch than to the local D.C. courts.

This bill has nothing to do with D.C. statehood or home rule. Although D.C. will control the local D.C. courts when it becomes a state and Congress could--and should--give D.C. control over the local D.C. courts now, this bill would not give D.C. any new authority over the local D.C. courts.

Under the D.C. Home Rule Act, D.C. has no control over the organization or jurisdiction of the local D.C. courts, including the nomination and appointment of judges. A 7-member commission, which is comprised of federal, D.C. and private-sector appointees, submits to the president a list of 3 persons for each vacancy on the local D.C. courts. The president must nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint 1 person from the list. If the president fails to nominate 1 of the persons from the list within 60 days, the commission must nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint 1 of the persons from the list.

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

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

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the District of Columbia Prosecutor Home Rule Act of 2023, which would give D.C. the authority to prosecute all crimes committed under its laws. Congress already lets D.C. write D.C. criminal laws, and lets D.C. enforce them against some violators. Congress should let D.C. enforce them against all violators. This bill would effectuate a 2002 advisory referendum, approved by 82 percent of D.C. voters, to create a local prosecutor's office.

Currently, the U.S. Attorney for D.C. has the authority to prosecute most D.C. crimes committed by adults and some by juveniles, while the D.C. Attorney General has the authority to prosecute most D.C. crimes committed by juveniles and some by adults. Giving D.C. the authority to prosecute all D.C. crimes would not only give D.C. residents a say in the enforcement of all their laws, it also would save the federal government tens of millions of dollars a year by reducing the number of assistant U.S. attorneys in the U.S. Attorney's Office for D.C.

Last Congress, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform passed this bill as part of my District of Columbia Home Rule Expansion Act of 2022.

I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Securities and Exchange Commission Real Estate Leasing Authority Revocation Act, which would revoke the real estate leasing authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and direct the Government Accountability Office to update its 2016 report on independent leasing authority in the federal government. The House passed this bill last Congress.

Since the SEC was granted leasing authority in 1990, before I came to Congress, the SEC has consistently stumbled through leasing mistakes at great expense to taxpayers. It is time for Congress to end this fiasco and return the leasing authority to the General Services Administration (GSA), the federal government's real estate arm, like other federal agencies.

When Congress exempted the SEC from GSA regulations and directives in 1990, it expressed its clear intent that ``the authority granted to the Commission to lease its own office space directly will be exercised vigorously by the Commission to achieve actual cost savings and to increase the Commission's productivity and efficiency.'' (H.R. Conf. Rep. 101-924.) Over the past 30 years, none of that has come to fruition.

The SEC did not even establish a Leasing Branch until April 2009, and did not put into place any leasing policies or procedures until August 2010. Before that, in May 2005, the SEC disclosed that it had identified unbudgeted costs of approximately $48 million attributable to misestimates and omissions of costs associated with the construction of its headquarters near Union Station. In 2007, after moving into its headquarters, the SEC shuffled its employees to different office spaces at a cost of over $3 million without any cost-benefit analysis or justifiable rationale.

In the summer of 2010, the SEC's Office of Administrative Services (OAS) conducted a deeply flawed and unsound analysis to justify the need for the SEC to lease 900,000 square feet of space at Constitution Center and to commit over $500 million over 10 years, overestimating the amount of space needed by over 300 percent. In addition to this gross overestimation of space, OAS failed to provide complete and accurate information and prepared a faulty and backdated Justification and Approval after it had already signed the lease.

As a former chair and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, I was deeply involved in oversight of the SEC's real estate activities in the District of Columbia after the agency engaged in this improper sole- source procurement of nearly one million square feet of leased space. We held two hearings on this subject in 2011. At the first hearing, titled ``The Security and Exchange Commission's $500 Million Fleecing of America,'' SEC Inspector General H. David Kotz testified that employees ignored the SEC chair's explicit instructions and engaged in possible criminal violations in a sole-source procurement. He also supported stripping the SEC of leasing authority if the SEC did not undertake major reforms. I agreed with Inspector General Katz's evaluation and introduced legislation to revoke the SEC's leasing authority for the first time.

At the second hearing, titled ``The Security and Exchange Commission's $500 Million Fleecing of America: Part Two,'' SEC Chairwoman Mary L. Schapiro testified that ``the SEC recognizes the benefits of having [GSA] manage the Commission's future lease acquisitions. Leasing is not part of the Commission's core mission and we cannot allow it to impede that mission.'' She then explained that the SEC would pare down its leasing program ``solely to liaise with GSA.'' This arrangement, in which GSA manages SEC leasing activities, was memorialized in a Memorandum of Understanding between GSA and the SEC on August 1, 2011.

Today, I have concerns that the SEC is going back on the commitment it made to Congress, which is why I am reintroducing this bill. In August 2016, GSA and the SEC entered into an Occupancy Agreement to authorize GSA to conduct the process for a new 15-year lease. In December 2016, GSA, with the approval of the SEC, submitted a prospectus to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for approximately 1,274,000 rentable square feet for the SEC. Congress approved this prospectus in 2018, and by July 2019, GSA had received final bids, resolved all protests and even selected a final bidder. A month later, in August 2019, the SEC canceled the Occupancy Agreement with GSA, citing concerns about the value of the purchase option that was part of the lease, concerns the SEC refused to document to Congress. The SEC effectively vetoed the entire procurement process despite not having the authority or funding mechanism to exercise the purchase option without GSA's involvement. After a few more months of impasse, the SEC requested that GSA cancel the procurement and commence a new procurement process.

Finally, after much back and forth between the two agencies, GSA entered into a lease for a new SEC headquarters in September 2021. The SEC says it will continue to have GSA do its leasing in the future, but the SEC's history of egregious leasing conduct, having squandered hundreds of millions of dollars, makes this bill still necessary.

These public blunders also risk undermining the reputation of GSA and the federal government among developers and building owners that participate in these lease procurements and ultimately driving up the costs of all GSA real estate procurements due to the threat of uncertainty. This also means that the SEC will continue to engage in short-term leases at a premium while the procurement process plays out again, instead of quickly transitioning to a more cost-effective long- term lease as planned. Congress created this confusion by granting the SEC leasing authority, and now Congress must fix it by revoking that authority.

The SEC's mission is to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation. GSA's mission is to provide other civilian federal agencies with workspace and furnishings at best value to the taxpayer. As the SEC has demonstrated over three decades, it is incredibly inefficient, wasteful and redundant to have the SEC involved in the nuances of real estate decisions when GSA exists for that very reason. Like other federal agencies, the SEC would continue to have input and involvement in the decision-making process, but the ultimate real estate authority would lie with GSA, where it belongs.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Legislative Home Rule Act, which would eliminate the congressional review period for D.C. legislation. D.C. legislation takes effect after a congressional review period, unless a joint resolution of disapproval is enacted into law during the review period. The review period imposes significant costs on both D.C. and Congress, but only 3 disapproval resolutions on D.C. legislation have been enacted since passage of the D.C. Home Rule Act in 1973, and none since 1991. Yet, the D.C. Council has had to develop a Kafkaesque legislative process to comply with the review period, often having to pass the same bill multiple times. Congress loses nothing by eliminating the review period. Congress can legislate on any D.C. matter at any time, and has done so many times outside of the review period, such as through the appropriations process.

The congressional review period (30 days for civil bills and 60 days for criminal bills) is based on legislative days, not calendar days, often delaying D.C. bills from becoming law for many months. The delay forces the D.C. Council to pass most bills several times, using a cumbersome and complicated process to ensure that the operations of this large city continue uninterrupted.

Placing a congressional hold on D.C. bills has not only proven unnecessary, but has imposed costs on the D.C. government, residents and businesses. D.C. residents and businesses are placed on hold because they have no certainty when D.C. bills, from taxes to regulations, will take effect, making it difficult to plan. It is particularly unfair to require the D.C. Council to engage in this unnecessary, labor-intensive and costly process.

Last Congress, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform passed this bill as part of my District of Columbia Home Rule Expansion Act of 2022.

I urge my colleagues to support this good-government measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the District of Columbia statehood bill, formally known as the Washington, D.C. Admission Act. This bill, which the House passed in the 116th and 117th Congresses, is the most important bill I introduce each Congress.

The nearly 700,000 D.C. residents, who have all the obligations of American citizenship, including paying all federal taxes and serving in the armed forces, are denied voting representation in Congress and full local self-government. This bill would give D.C. residents the voting representation in Congress and full local self-government they have been denied for more than 220 years. To be content with less than statehood is to concede the equality of citizenship that is the birthright of D.C. residents as American citizens.

Congress has a moral obligation and the constitutional authority to pass this bill. This country was founded on the principles of no taxation without representation and consent of the governed, but D.C. residents are taxed without representation and cannot consent to the laws under which they, as American citizens, must live.

This bill would admit the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth into the Union and reduce the size of the federal district. The state would consist of the residential and commercial portions of present-day D.C., and the reduced federal district, which would remain under Congress' control, would consist of the Capitol Complex, the White House, the Supreme Court, the principal federal monuments and the National Mall area.

This bill complies with the Constitution, including the Admissions Clause, the District Clause and the 23rd Amendment.

The Admissions Clause gives Congress the authority to admit new states. All 37 new states were admitted by Congress. No new state was admitted by constitutional amendment. No state would have to consent to the admission of the State of Washington, D.C.

The District Clause gives Congress plenary authority over the federal district and establishes a maximum size of the federal district. It does not establish a minimum size or a location of the federal district. Congress reduced the size of the federal district by 30 percent in 1846.

The 23rd Amendment allows the federal district to participate in the Electoral College. This bill would repeal the enabling act for the 23rd Amendment and the 23rd Amendment would be repealed quickly. In any event, the 23rd Amendment does not establish a minimum size or a location of the federal district.

The Constitution does not establish any prerequisites for new states, but Congress generally has considered three: population and resources, support for statehood and commitment to democracy. The State of Washington, D.C. would meet each.

D.C.'s population is larger than that of two states, and the new state would be one of six states with a population under one million. D.C. pays more federal taxes per capita than any state and pays more federal taxes than 23 states. D.C.'s gross domestic product is larger than that of 17 states. Eighty-six percent of D.C. residents voted for statehood in 2016. In fact, D.C. residents have been fighting for voting representation in Congress and local autonomy for more than 220 years.

I seek statehood for the Americans I am honored to represent. At the same time, D.C. statehood is deeply personal for me. My great- grandfather Richard Holmes, who escaped as a slave from a Virginia plantation, made it as

far as D.C., a walk to freedom but not to equal citizenship. For generations, my family has been denied the rights other Americans take for granted. There are many other D.C. residents like me.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, these rules are a gratuitous attack on already limited rights of D.C. residents. Our residents have all the obligations of citizenship, including paying all Federal taxes, but are denied voting rights in Congress and full local self-government. To add insult to injury, these rules take away floor privileges of the D.C. Mayor.

The rules continue to grant Governors and 16 other categories of people, including foreign ministers, floor privileges. Not only does D.C.'s Mayor operate like State Governors--including managing a jurisdiction that has both a budget and population larger than those of several States--but Congress has undemocratic plenary authority over D.C. and regularly uses this authority to legislate on local matters.

While D.C. deserves statehood, if any non-member of Congress deserves and needs floor privileges, it is D.C.'s Mayor.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 8665) ``to amend title 44, United States Code, to remove pronouns from such title that reference the Archivist, and for other purposes.''

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this measure.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 8665, the National Archives and Records Modernization Act would make a small, yet important update to the U.S. Code. This bipartisan bill would remove references to the pronoun ``he'' when referring to the Archivist and other senior officials of the National Archives and Records Administration, or NARA.

I thank Representative Ro Khanna, chairman of the Subcommittee on the Environment on the Oversight Committee for his leadership on this incredibly important bill. I would also like to recognize Representatives Yvette Herrell, Katie Porter, Byron Donalds, and Danny Davis, who are all original cosponsors.

As the Nation's recordkeeper, NARA plays a critical role in the preservation of the government's most important documents and materials.

NARA's mission is to provide equitable public access to the records of the Federal Government because public access to records strengthens democracy and allows all Americans to understand their history so they can fully participate in government.

Currently, the NARA is being led by Debra Steidel Wall who is serving as Acting Archivist of the United States, and has been a public servant at NARA for more than 30 years.

However, the United States Code does not reflect in its text that women can hold this important position. The code is outdated in its references to the Nation's Archivist and other senior officials as men. It is long overdue that we update title 44 to remove reference to pronouns in the law that wrongly assume that only a man can hold this important role.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 8665, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 7535) to encourage the migration of Federal Government information technology systems to quantum- resistant cryptography, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure.

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

Madam Speaker, I strongly support the Quantum Computing Cybersecurity Preparedness Act.

Last year, Congressman Khanna came to me about a grave national security threat looming on the horizon.

Today, the processes we use to encrypt data are very reliable and can keep sensitive data secure during storage or transmission. But tomorrow, that may no longer be the case.

Researchers around the world are making rapid advances toward quantum computing, which is the application of quantum physics to allow computers to perform calculations many magnitudes faster and more powerfully than they do today.

While quantum computers have the potential to provide considerable benefits to society, it is also increasingly likely that they could allow our adversaries to break the best encryption we are capable of today.

Capabilities of this magnitude are likely still a decade or more in the future, but China and other adversaries are expected to begin stealing sensitive encrypted data much sooner to unlock it when they have the capacity to do so.

It is essential that the Federal Government prepare for this inevitability now, while we still have time to protect data that is critical to our national and economic security. The process of migrating all Federal IT systems to quantum-resistant cryptography will be complex and costly, but we need to start laying the groundwork for this today.

I applaud Mr. Khanna, as well as Ms. Mace, Mr. Connolly, and Senator Hassan, for introducing the Senate companion, all of them for putting forth a thoughtful, bipartisan bill to establish that very process.

This bill would require the Office of Management and Budget to quickly issue guidance requiring Federal agencies to create and maintain inventories of all cryptographic systems currently in use, as well as all Federal IT systems that could be vulnerable to future quantum computers.

Within a year, OMB would be required to submit to Congress a strategy for addressing the risk posed by quantum computing, allowing time for assessment of this strategy before the National Institute of Standards and Technology is expected to issue its standards for how to deal with quantum computing in 2024.

The OMB would then be required to issue guidance requiring agencies to develop a plan to migrate their IT systems to quantum-resistant cryptography using those standards and to consult with the Chief Information Officers Council to prioritize agency IT systems for migration based on risk.

The bill before us today provides more concrete direction to support this vision, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge concurrence in the Senate amendment to H.R. 7535, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5349) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1550 State Road S-38-211 in Orangeburg, South Carolina, as the ``J.I. Washington Post Office Building''.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this measure.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5349, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1550 State Road S-38-211 in Orangeburg, South Carolina, as the J.I. Washington Post Office Building.

Madam Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 5349, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Maloney for marking up my bill and helping to bring it to the floor.

This bill would name the post office at 400 Southern Avenue Southeast in the District of Columbia as the District of Columbia Servicemembers and Veterans Post Office. While it is important that our country honor all servicemembers and veterans, our country owes a special debt of gratitude to D.C. servicemembers and veterans, who serve or have served their country without voting representation in Congress or full local self-government. It is remarkable that they serve a country that denies them basic democratic rights, rights they have often been sent overseas to defend.

D.C. residents have served in every war since the Revolutionary War. There are approximately 30,000 veterans who live in the District of Columbia, and almost 200,000 D.C. residents have served in the military since World War I. This bill is one way to recognize their service and sacrifice.

635 D.C. residents were casualties of World War I, a casualty figure greater than that of three States during that war. 3,575 D.C. residents were casualties of World War II, a casualty figure greater than that of four States during that war. 547 D.C. residents were casualties of the Korean war, a casualty figure greater than that of eight States during that war. 243 D.C. residents were casualties of the Vietnam war, a casualty figure greater than that of 10 States during that war.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the Major General David F. Wherley, Jr., District of Columbia National Guard Retention and College Access Program Act. This bill would permanently authorize funding for the Major General David F. Wherley, Jr., District of Columbia National Guard Retention and College Access Program, which provides tuition and other financial assistance for higher education to members of the D.C. National Guard, which is an exclusively federal entity.

This program and bill are named for Major General David F. Wherley, Jr., former Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard, who, along with his wife, Ann, and seven others were tragically killed when Metro trains collided on the Red Line on June 22, 2009. I renamed this bill after Major General Wherley because he worked tirelessly with me for many years to get funding for this program, and because of his devotion to D.C. youth and to the D.C. National Guard.

This program was recommended by Major General Wherley and his successor at the D.C. National Guard, Major General Errol Schwartz, to stem the troublesome loss of D.C. National Guard members to other units, including National Guards in surrounding states that offer assistance for higher education to their members. I am grateful that Congress has consistently provided funding for this program, most recently $600,000 in fiscal year 2022. Permanently authorizing this program will help ensure that members of the D.C. National Guard receive the same benefits as members of other National Guards and help the D.C. National Guard recruit and retain members.

This program not only benefits D.C. National Guard members, the great majority of whom live in Maryland or Virginia, but also helps the D.C. National Guard to maintain the force necessary to protect the federal presence in D.C.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3875) to require the President to develop and maintain products that show the risk of natural hazards across the United States, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 3875.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Community Disaster Resilience Zones Act, led by Congresswoman Sharice Davids in the House, will enable the Federal Emergency Management Agency to identify the communities most in need of mitigation projects and to help them access the necessary funding and support to complete such projects.

Climate change and development in high-risk zones has created a never-ending stream of disaster impacts that cause billions of dollars in damage around the country, which taxpayer

dollars must cover. This legislation will help protect communities and reduce the financial burden on taxpayers by targeting mitigation investments to communities that have the fewest resources to invest in resilience and are expected to incur the greatest amount of disaster damage.

By directing the Federal Emergency Management Agency to publicly designate the most in-need and at-risk census tracts as Community Disaster Resilience Zones, stakeholders can effectively target mitigation investments to these communities and make them more resilient. This legislation also authorizes Federal cost share flexibility for Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities grant project applicants in designated Community Disaster Resilience Zones.

I ask my colleagues to support the Community Disaster Resilience Zones Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of support for S. 3875 signed by 32 organizations.

December 5, 2022.

Hon. Peter DeFazio,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Sam Graves,

Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves: We, the

undersigned organizations, write to express support for S.

3875, the Community Disaster Resilience Zones (CDRZ) Act of

2022, which the Senate passed by unanimous consent and is

nearly identical to the bill (H.R. 7242) your committee

passed. Collectively, our organizations represent a wide

variety of constituencies, including business, conservation,

emergency managers, housing, infrastructure, local

government, public safety, science, and taxpayer

organizations. We commend the CDRZ Act bill sponsors,

Representatives Sharice Davids and Garret Graves and Senators

Gary Peters and Rob Portman, for their bipartisan, bicameral

leadership and thank them for introducing the CDRZ Act bills.

This legislation is a critical, foundational step toward

prioritizing and directing a whole-of-nation focus on the

most vulnerable communities facing the risk of potentially

life-threatening and economically devastating climate and

natural disaster events.

The CDRZ Act would amend the Stafford Act to establish a

statutory structure to identify and designate CDRZ

communities that are the most in need and most at risk to

natural hazards, such as hurricanes, flooding, earthquakes,

and wildfires, to increase public and private sector

investments in housing, infrastructure, and community-wide

resilience. Building smart, modern, resilient infrastructure,

including nature-based infrastructure, has long been among

our top priorities. We support the CDRZ Act, which would:

Amend the Stafford Act by adding a requirement that FEMA

maintain and update products and tools that define natural

hazard risk across the U.S. and use that dataset to identify

and designate CDRZ communities that are the most in need and

most at risk to natural hazards;

Authorize the President to provide CDRZ-designated

communities with assistance and funding for pre-disaster

mitigation planning and projects to increase resilience

against the identified hazards; and

Help prioritize and attract additional public and private

sector funding (including public-private partnerships) for

resilience projects in or primarily benefitting CDRZ-

designated communities.

Thank you for your leadership. We look forward to

continuing to work with you and Congress to ensure our

communities most threatened by climate and natural disaster

risk and most economically vulnerable have the support,

resources, and opportunities they need to improve their

resilience.

Sincerely,

US Resiliency Council (USRC), U.S. Chamber of Commerce,

Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS), SmarterSafer Coalition,

SBP, Resilience Innovation Hub, Reinsurance Association of

America (RAA), R Street Institute, National Wildlife

Federation (NWF), National Special Districts Coalition

(NSDC), National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS),

National Housing Conference (NHC), National Emergency

Management Association (NEMA), National Association of Mutual

Insurance Companies (NAMIC), National Association of Counties

(NACo), Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP).

International Code Council (ICC), International Association

of Emergency Managers (IAEM), Insurance Institute for

Business & Home Safety (IBHS), Ecological Restoration

Business Association (ERBA), The Council of Insurance Agents

& Brokers (CIAB), Central United States Earthquake Consortium

(CUSEC), Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES),

BuildStrong Coalition, Big City Emergency Managers (BCEM),

American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), American

Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), American Property Casualty

Insurance Association (APCIA), American Planning Association

(APA), American Institute of Architects (AIA), American

Council of Engineerng Companies (ACEC), After the Fire:

Recover, Rebuild. Reimagine. (ATF3R).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

This bill will also help my district, which was built on the rivers and where disaster resilience is most needed.

In closing, we know that investments in mitigation measures save up to $11 for every $1 spent. This legislation will save taxpayer dollars by investing in mitigation and protecting vulnerable communities.

I thank my colleague, Sharice Davids, for her work on this issue, and I support this targeted, data-driven approach. I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3499) to amend the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006

to repeal certain obsolete requirements, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 3499.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill will repeal a section of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 to conform the act with government-wide Federal acquisition regulation changes to subcontracting limits.

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2009 directed the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to institute a government-wide limitation on excessive subcontracting. This change put the Department of Homeland Security-specific requirements established by the Post- Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act in conflict with government- wide rules. This bill simply repeals the Department of Homeland Security's obsolete requirement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

S. 3499 is a simple example of good governance with bipartisan support. I support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce a bill to require the installation of the District of Columbia's seal on the stained-glass windows in the Main Reading Room of the Thomas Jefferson Building of the Library of Congress, where the seals of all the states and territories that existed when the building was constructed, except for the District, are depicted. D.C.'s seal was readily available at that time and should have been included.

The seals of Hawaii and Alaska are not included in the display because they were not states or territories when the building was constructed. This fact argues for the inclusion of the District, which, after all, was the nation's capital at the time of construction. The omission of D.C. was brought to my attention by a District resident, Luis Landau, a former docent at the Library.

The residents of the District have always had all the obligations of American citizenship, including paying federal taxes and serving in all the nation's wars, including the War of 1812, during which the Capitol building, which then housed the Library of Congress, was burned, prompting construction of the current Library building with the state and territory seals. It is, therefore, without question that the District and its residents should receive equal treatment among the stained-glass windows that portray the history of the United States. D.C. residents deserve to have their history and American citizenship recognized.

There is existing evidence that the D.C. seal should have been depicted. The Members of Congress room in the Jefferson Building, which is not open to the public, has a painted depiction of the D.C. seal included with state seals on its ceiling. This precedent reinforces our request to be represented among the stained-glass windows in the Main Reading Room, which is open to the public.

Congress already often includes D.C., or has corrected the omission of it, when honoring the states. For example, D.C. now has two statues in the Capitol alongside two statues from each of the 50 states. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 requires the armed services to display the District flag whenever the flags of the states are displayed. Legislation was also enacted to give D.C. a coin after it was omitted from legislation creating coins for the 50 states. We also successfully worked with the U.S. Postal Service to create a D.C. stamp, like the stamps for the 50 states, and worked with the National Park Service to add the D.C. flag alongside the state flags across from Union Station. It is long overdue to display the D.C. seal with the seals of the states in the Main Reading Room of the Library of Congress.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.