Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the McIntire-Stennis Act District of Columbia Equality Act, which would make the District of Columbia eligible for funding under the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act (Act) in the same manner as states.

The Act provides funding to states and certain territories for forestry research programs. The funding assists states and territories in carrying out forestry research programs at state forestry schools and colleges and developing a trained pool of forest scientists capable of conducting forestry research.

D.C. residents pay the same federal taxes as residents of states and therefore D.C. is almost always treated as a state under federal programs. The Act defines ``State'' to include Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Guam, whose residents do not pay full federal taxes. D.C.'s exclusion from the Act makes it ineligible for funding that would support research at D.C.'s public university, the University of the District of Columbia (UDC). The College of Agriculture, Urban Sustainability and Environmental Sciences at UDC, the Nation's only urban land-grant university, offers programs that complement D.C.'s ongoing forestry efforts and serve individuals in D.C. and beyond. Rectifying D.C.'s exclusion from the Act would ensure equal treatment for D.C. and provide UDC a fair share of resources.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act District of Columbia Equality Act. This bill would make the District of Columbia eligible for federal funding under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act in the same manner as states. D.C. residents pay the same federal taxes as residents of the states and, therefore, D.C. should be treated as a state under federal programs. D.C. has roughly 7,800 acres of parkland, covering nearly a quarter of the city.

The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act provides funding to states for five distinct purposes: program administration, wildlife restoration, basic hunter education and safety, enhanced hunter education and safety grants and multistate conservation grants. In general, D.C. is not eligible for funding under this Act.

The Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act provides funding for sport fish restoration, aquatic education, wetlands restoration and boat-related activities. Under this Act, each state receives a minimum of one percent of the total amount apportioned, while D.C. is capped at one-third of one percent.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Bayard Rustin Stamp Act. This bill would direct the United States Postmaster General to issue a forever stamp to commemorate the life and work of Bayard Rustin. Representative Ritchie Torres is co-leading this bill.

Born in 1912, Rustin became one of the most important leaders in the 20th century civil rights movement. At a young age, Rustin learned the values of nonviolence and peacekeeping from his grandparents' Quaker faith, and he would continue to build these values into his life as a civil rights movement leader.

Rustin attended City College of New York, where he joined a progressive club that aimed to remedy racial issues during turbulent times. His time with the club was short-lived, but it inspired him to join the Fellowship of Reconciliation, an organization that became a champion for labor rights, equity and world peace.

Rustin's time with the Fellowship of Reconciliation led him to become a leader in the 1947 ``Journey to Reconciliation,'' where white and Black people across the South rode buses together to challenge segregation laws, a precursor to the Freedom Rides.

Rustin was an advisor in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s inner circle as King advocated pacifism and nonviolence for achieving equal treatment for African Americans. Rustin applied his brilliant strategic mind to execute aggressive, peaceful action in the civil rights movement and throughout his life as an activist.

Rustin's most important role was as the chief organizer of the historic March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, the largest demonstration ever organized at the time, in which a quarter of a million people turned out to demand civil rights for African Americans.

In the years after the civil rights movement, Rustin, a gay man, inspired others to advocate for and achieve rights for LGBTQ+ people. He

remained a strategist and public speaker for workers' rights movements, including co-founding the A. Philip Randolph Institute, an organization for Black trade union members. Rustin remained committed to promoting social good, and advocating for the disenfranchised, until his death.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this unprecedented, undemocratic, and paternalistic disapproval resolution. This

disapproval resolution would sabotage the District of Columbia's tax filing season and credit rating.

The substance of the D.C. law that is the subject of this disapproval resolution should be irrelevant to Members of Congress since there is never justification for Congress to legislate on local D.C. matters, but I will discuss it.

The D.C. law, which the D.C. Council unanimously passed, established a child tax credit, increased an existing earned income tax credit, and decoupled D.C.'s tax code from some of the tax provisions in the so- called One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

This disapproval resolution would repeal the D.C. law. Let's be clear: The D.C. law changed only the D.C. tax code. It did not, and could not, change the Federal tax code.

The D.C. tax filing season began last week. This disapproval resolution would change D.C.'s tax code during the current tax filing season, causing an administrative nightmare for D.C. and tax software companies. D.C. would have to suspend the current tax filing season for several months to update tax forms and guidance, and taxpayers who have already filed returns would have to file amended returns.

The D.C. law is not unique. Like D.C., approximately half of the States, both red and blue, automatically adopt Federal tax changes in their tax codes. However, like D.C., several of these States, both red and blue, have passed laws decoupling their tax codes from some of the tax provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

The approximately 20 States, both red and blue, that link their tax codes to the Federal tax code, as of a specific date would have to change that date to adopt the tax provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The D.C. law expires in 225 days, giving D.C. time to evaluate which provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act it wants to permanently adopt or decouple.

This disapproval resolution could harm D.C.'s credit rating, forcing D.C. to pay higher interest rates. Rating agencies consider the possibility of Congress meddling in D.C.'s fiscal matters as negative for D.C.'s rating, but also consider as positive that ``Congress has never voided or otherwise overturned a revenue-raising measure approved by the District.''

If this disapproval resolution were enacted, Congress would have overturned a revenue-raising measure approved by D.C. Last year, when Congress cut D.C.'s local budget by $1 billion, D.C.'s rating was put on negative watch. This disapproval resolution is an even bigger threat to D.C.'s rating.

The D.C. law established a child tax credit and increased an existing earned income tax credit. These credits are projected to reduce child poverty in D.C. by 20 percent. This disapproval resolution would repeal these credits.

The D.C. law is expected to generate approximately $600 million in local revenue over the next 4 years. If this disapproval resolution were enacted, D.C. would have to make up for that lost revenue, such as by cutting critical programs.

The 700,000 D.C. residents, the majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable and worthy of self-government. I urge my colleagues to oppose this disapproval resolution and to instead make D.C. a State. Free D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to Congress from the D.C. Office of the Chief Financial Officer, an independent office established by Congress.

Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the

Chief Financial Officer,

February 2, 2026.

Re Impact of Joint Resolution on District of Columbia

Finances.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives.

Hon. John Thune,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives.

Hon. Charles Schumer,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate.

Dear Speaker Johnson, Leader Jeffries, Leader Thune, and

Leader Schumer: We are providing information on the financial

implications to the Government of the District of Columbia

from Joint Resolution of Disapproval H.J. Res. 142 and Joint

Resolution of Disapproval S.J. Res. 102 (collectively, the

Joint Resolution).

If the joint Resolution passes both the House and Senate

and is signed by the President, the changes in District law

enacted by The District's Income and Franchise Tax Conformity

and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025 (the Tax

Amendment Act), which de-coupled the District from certain

provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, H.R. 1, Public

Law 119-21 (OBBBA), would be invalidated.

This document reviews the implications of the Joint

Resolution on the District's current four-year Financial

Plan, the District's tax administration processes, and the

District's cash position.

Financial Plan

The Joint Resolution would not have a material impact on

the four-year financial plan approved by the Mayor and D.C.

Council, and by Congress.

In the September 2025 Revenue Estimate issued by my office,

the District estimated a reduction in revenue from the

implementation of OBBBA provisions. However, such reduction

was estimated to be offset by revenues collected by the

District under current law (i.e., not taking into account the

impact of implementing the Tax Amendment Act) and as a result

of the general state of the economy in the District of

Columbia.

In particular, personal income tax revenues are estimated

to be strong due to capital gains earnings by higher-income

households, and corporate tax revenues are expected to

increase due to strong growth in earnings by businesses that

have a presence in the District of Columbia.

Tax Administration

Enactment of the Joint Resolution will disrupt the

District's ability to collect income tax revenues associated

with annual income tax filings due by April 15, 2026.

Several of the provisions in the District's Tax Amendment

Act were applicable for tax year 2025, and for certain

taxpayers, tax years 2022, 2023, and 2024. Beginning last

fall, the District's tax administration agency, the Office of

Tax and Revenue (OTR), undertook efforts to implement the

legislation in time for the opening of the tax filing season

on January 26, 2026.

Implementation required substantial changes to OTR's

systems and taxpayer forms for nearly all aspects of income

and franchise tax filings by District residents, trusts and

estates, as well as all corporations, unincorporated

businesses, and partnerships doing business in the District.

It also required OTR staff training and outreach to tax

software vendors, the tax preparer community, and taxpayers.

Enactment of the Joint Resolution means that the changes

that were made to OTR's forms and systems for tax year 2025

will no longer be consistent with District law. As a result,

OTR would need to suspend the current filing season until

such time as it can make the necessary changes to revert the

District's tax administration system to conform with legal

requirements prior to the Tax Amendment Act's enactment. The

necessary changes include, but are not limited to:

Updating forms, schedules, and instructions. Forms and

other relevant filing documents must be developed.

Additionally, preparation for each filing season typically

begins immediately after the start of the previous season. If

OTR is required to re-work tax year 2025 now, they will be

managing two filing seasons concurrently (i.e., Tax Years

2025 and 2026).

Systems changes. Reprogramming the tax processing system

will be required. This includes development of business and

system requirements, and tasks associated with Modernized

Electronic Filing. As noted previously, OTR would be required

to manage two filing seasons concurrently.

Changes to software of tax processing vendors. Vendors will

need to reconfigure software to allow taxpayers to properly

file. If the District must reverse the changes pursuant to

implementing the Act, it could be at risk of losing vendors

who normally participate in DC tax filing, as the current

products that are already approved and in use would no longer

be valid.

For the current filing season, OTR managers estimate that

adjustments will likely require several months, which would

extend District income tax filing deadlines into fall 2026.

The adjustments will also generate millions of dollars of

additional expenses that must be paid by the District's

General Fund resources.

Cash Flow

Invalidation of the Tax Amendment Act may lead to District

cash flow disruptions. In addition to the administrative

burdens described above, the District is assessing the impact

of the invalidation of the Tax Amendment Act on the timing of

collections of income tax revenues and the related cash flow,

among other matters. For example, it is possible that an

extension in filing deadlines could lead to a shift in the

timing of collections in income tax revenue from Fiscal Year

2026 to Fiscal Year 2027, thereby creating a shortfall in

cash collections of approximately $400 million in FY 2026.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions.

Sincerely,

Glen Lee.

Mr. Speaker, the letter states that if this disapproval resolution were enacted, the office would have to suspend the current D.C. tax filing season for several months to update tax forms, schedules, and instructions, to reprogram the tax processing system, and for tax preparation companies to update their software.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a joint letter to Congress from D.C.'s elected Mayor and the elected council chairman strongly opposing this disapproval resolution.

February 2, 2026.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives.

Hon. John Thune,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate.

Hon. Charles Schumer,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate.

Dear Speaker Johnson, Leader Jeffries, Leader Thune, and

Leader Schumer: We write to express our strong opposition to

Joint Resolution of Disapproval H.J. Res. 142 and Joint

Resolution of Disapproval S.J. Res. 102. These resolutions

are an intrusion on the District's Home Rule authority and

would have major and immediate impacts on tax administration

in the District. We very strongly urge you and your

colleagues to oppose these resolutions.

The District of Columbia is one of many jurisdictions

across the Nation that routinely modifies its local tax code

in accordance with federal tax laws, including choosing to

decouple from federal tax changes to address local concerns

or mitigate projected fiscal impacts. At the end of last

year, multiple states and the District decided to decouple

their tax codes from some provisions of H.R. 1. While the

District adopted the majority of H.R. 1 provisions, a small

number were temporarily set aside. These decisions were made

through the District's legislative process and are the same

type of policy judgments that every state and local

government routinely makes on behalf of their residents.

The timing of these resolutions are especially problematic.

The District is already a month into the 2026 tax year and

has begun accepting and processing tax returns. Disapproval

at this stage would create huge administrative challenges,

require taxpayers to re-file their taxes, render existing

guidance and forms obsolete, and necessitate rapid mid-year

changes to tax administration systems. It is unclear how

quickly commercial tax preparation software could be updated

to accommodate such changes, and District residents and

businesses would likely experience confusion, as well as

delays. The resolutions would lead to the District's income

tax filing deadlines to be pushed to Fall 2026 and would

cause millions of dollars in additional expenses.

We strongly urge you to oppose the disapproval resolutions

and to respect the District's governance of its local fiscal

affairs.

Sincerely,

Muriel Bowser,

Mayor.

Phil Mendelson,

Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, while they disagreed on whether the D.C. Council should have enacted the D.C. law that is the subject of this disapproval resolution in the first place, they both strongly oppose this disapproval resolution. Their letter states that this disapproval resolution, if enacted, not only would violate D.C.'s right to self- government but ``would have major and immediate impacts on tax administration in the District.''

Mr. Speaker, I finally include in the Record a letter to Congress from the D.C. business community.

February 3, 2026.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives.

Hon. John Thune,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives.

Hon. Charles Schumer,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate.

Dear Speaker Johnson, Leader Thune, Leader Jeffries, and

Leader Schumer: We write to you, in unison, as

representatives of the District of Columbia's business

organizations, urging you to oppose the Joint Resolution of

Disapproval H.J. Res. 142 and Joint Resolution of Disapproval

S.J. Res. 102 that would reverse the District's decision to

decouple the local tax code from some provisions of the One

Big Beautiful Bill Act's federal tax code changes.

A reversal of decoupling would create chaos in the middle

of tax filing season. The District has already begun

accepting and processing returns. It would take the DC

government and private vendors months to adjust local tax

administration. Filing deadlines would have to be pushed back

to the Fall of 2026. Delaying local income tax collection

would create a local cash shortfall of up to $400 million in

FY26, according to the DC Chief Financial Officer.

Local tax code decoupling from the federal tax code is not

unique. Many states have also voted to decouple from

provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, as they have

many times in the past in response to federal tax changes.

Changes at this stage in the process would create fiscal

instability and uncertainty, impeding the District's ability

to attract investment. There are many ways that Congress has

and can continue to use its power to make the District a

vibrant city where Americans want to live, visit, and do

business, and we welcome your support for the District of

Columbia.

Sincerely,

The Washington, DC Business and Civic Community; Anthony

Williams, CEO & Executive Director, Federal City Council;

Jack McDougle, President & CEO, Greater Washington Board of

Trade; Chinyere Hubbard, President & CEO, DC Chamber of

Commerce; Lisa Mallory, President & CEO, Apartment & Office

Building Association of Metropolitan Washington; Scott

Reiter, CEO, DC Association of REALTORS; Jacqueline D.

Bowens, President & CEO, D.C. Hospital Association; Liz

DeBarros, CEO, District of Columbia Building Industry

Association; Edward Krauze, CEO, Greater Capital Area

Association of Realtors; Solomon Keene, President & CEO,

Hotel Association of Washington, DC; Malcom Fox, Executive

Director, Opportunity DC.

Mr. Speaker, while the D.C. business community may not have supported the D.C. law that is the subject of this disapproval resolution, their letter states they oppose this disapproval resolution because it would, if enacted, cause ``chaos in the middle of tax filing season'' and ``create fiscal instability and uncertainty, impeding the District's ability to attract investment.''

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Golden Thirteen Congressional Gold Medal Act. This bill would award a posthumous Congressional Gold Medal to the 13 men who became the first African American commissioned and warrant officers in the United States Navy.

In 1944, the Navy began officer training for 16 African American men. At that time, there were no African American officers in the Navy. These 16 men were expected to complete their officer training in eight weeks, even though officer training was normally 16 weeks.

These 16 men supported each other, including by placing blankets over their windows and studying as a group by flashlight at night. Each brought to the group his own expertise to help the others.

When their officer training was completed, all 16 passed their exams. With some claiming that the group must have cheated, the group was forced to retake certain exams, and the group scored even higher. The average grade for the group was 3.89 out of 4.0, the highest average of any class in Navy history at that time.

Even though all 16 men passed their exams, the Navy commissioned only 12 of the men, and a 13th was made a chief warrant officer. Three returned to the enlisted ranks, with no reason given by the Navy.

During the men's careers, they oversaw all-Black units or the training of Black recruits. One would go on to make his career in the Navy after World War II, with the rest returning to civilian life. In the 1970s, Captain Edward Secrest, a former instructor, gave the group the name the ``Golden Thirteen.''

I urge my colleagues to support this bill to honor the first African American officers in the Navy: Jesse Walter Arbor; Phillip G. Barnes; Samuel Edward Barnes; Dalton Louis Baugh, Sr.; George Clinton Cooper; Reginald Ernest Goodwin; James Edward Hair; Charles Byrd Lear; Graham Edward Martin; Dennis Denmark Nelson; John Walter Reagan; Frank Ellis Sublett, Jr.; and William Sylvester White. The three men who passed their exams but were not made officers were Augustus Alves; J.B. Pinkney; and Lewis ``Mummy'' Williams.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill that would permit commercial filmmaking and photography throughout the grounds of the U.S. Capitol Complex. Currently, such filmmaking and photography is only authorized in Union Square. Film and television productions that involve the Capitol should not have to go to other cities or use a fake building.

This bill would allow commercial filmmaking and photography outside of the Capitol and congressional office buildings by permit, as long as neither chamber is in session. The policy allowing commercial filmmaking and photography in Union Square shows that the Capitol Police can handle commercial filmmaking and photography at the Capitol Complex, especially when Congress is not in session. However, the Union Square vantage point captures the least familiar view of the Capitol. Preventing commercial filmmakers and photographers from shooting throughout the Capitol Complex is neither business-friendly nor true to the Nation's democratic traditions. Encouraging commercial filmmaking and photography at the Capitol would help spread the story of democracy around the world.

This bill would give the Capitol Police complete discretion to issue a permit for commercial filmmaking and photography throughout the Capitol Complex under the same terms and conditions as those for commercial filmmaking and photography in Union Square. No policy or security reasons exist to justify limiting commercial filmmaking and photography at the Capitol Complex to Union Square, especially considering that permits are necessary. Visitors are regularly seen taking videos and pictures around the Capitol Complex, demonstrating the arbitrary nature of limiting commercial filmmaking and photography to Union Square.

This bill would provide the Capitol Police authority to charge fees to cover any costs incurred by the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) for permit approval. The fees would be deposited into the Capitol Trust Account, which was established to accept fees collected from commercial filmmaking and photography permits for Union Square. Amounts in the Capitol Trust Account would be available without fiscal year limitation for maintenance, improvements, and projects the AOC considers appropriate, subject to the approval of the Appropriations Committees.

Views of the Capitol are among America's most iconic. Limiting commercial filmmaking and photography of the Capitol, an important vehicle for telling the Nation's story, does not serve the American people. Commercial films and photographs of the Capitol, the seat of our democracy, are perhaps the best modern vehicles for telling the Nation's story and showcasing its democratic system of government.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Courts and Public Defender Service Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would provide for coverage of employees of the local D.C. courts and the D.C. Public Defender Service (PDS) under the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977 (DCHRA). In 2022, the D.C. Court of Appeals

held that the DCHRA, which protects employees of the D.C. government and private employers from discrimination, is inapplicable to employees of the local D.C. courts. The court has not ruled on the applicability of the DCHRA to PDS employees.

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

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

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

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Transportation Funding Equality Act. This 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 as states are eligible for these programs. It would also make D.C. eligible in the same manner as states are 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 and therefore D.C. is almost always treated as a state in federal programs.

First, this 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, this bill would treat D.C. as a state under the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program. Under the formula grants for this program, each state is authorized to receive a minimum of $4 million per year, while D.C. is authorized to receive a minimum of only $1 million per year. Third, this 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 grants, and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has held that D.C. is ineligible, even though D.C. operates as the functional equivalent of a city, county and state. Fourth, this bill would treat D.C. as a state under the Safe Streets for All Program. Cities, counties and political subdivisions of a state are eligible for this program, but DOT has held that D.C. is ineligible.

The programs in this bill fund the modernization of bus and rail fleets, the purchase of zero-emission transit vehicles, the improvement of transit station accessibility for all users, the extension of transit services to new communities, the replacement and repair of culverts and the implementation of roadway safety improvements for all road users.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Postal Facilities Security Camera Act. This bill would require, subject to appropriations, the United States Postal Service (USPS) to install security cameras at each postal facility to protect USPS employees, customers and property. This bill would also authorize appropriations to carry out the camera program.

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 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.

USPS should have security cameras monitoring its 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 bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Thrift Savings Plan Emergency Withdrawal Act of 2025, which would expand the circumstances in which a federal employee recently separated from the federal government can take a penalty-free withdrawal from their Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) account. This bill would help former federal employees pay their bills after separation.

First, this bill would allow a penalty-free withdrawal to make up the gap between the interim payments a retiree receives during the period the Office of Personnel Management is calculating the retiree's final annuity and the estimated final annuity. A retiree's interim payment is generally only 60 percent to 80 percent of the finalized net payment. Second, this bill would allow a penalty-free withdrawal if an individual is involuntarily separated from the federal government. In both cases, the maximum withdrawal would be $100,000. Individuals would be able to make a withdrawal for up to a year after separation and to repay the withdrawn amount within three years to avoid the existing early withdrawal penalty, which is a 10 percent additional tax.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Chief Financial

Officer Salary Home Rule Act, which would give the District of Columbia authority to increase the pay of its Chief Financial Officer (CFO). The D.C. CFO is a local D.C. official and is paid with local D.C. funds. D.C. should have authority to set the pay of all its employees. In the 117th Congress, the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability passed this bill.

Under the D.C. Home Rule Act, Congress established a maximum rate of pay of the CFO, and the D.C. Council does not have authority to increase that rate. Congress does not cap, or otherwise establish, the pay of any other D.C. employee. Under this bill, the CFO would be paid at the greater of a rate equal to the current maximum rate of pay or a rate established in law by D.C.

D.C. requested that I introduce this bill to enable it to retain and recruit the best CFOs. The CFO was established by Congress in 1995. Congress vested the CFO with extraordinary powers and designed the CFO to be independent of the Mayor and Council. D.C. cannot obligate or expend funds without the CFO's approval that there are sufficient funds. The CFO manages a $22 billion budget that consists of state, county, and city functions, and the CFO has more than 1,700 employees. The CFO may be removed only for cause by the Mayor, subject to the approval of two-thirds of the Council and a 30-day congressional review and comment period. This bill would help maintain the independence of the CFO by establishing a permanent floor on the CFO's pay and by prohibiting the Council from reducing the CFO's pay during the CFO's term.

Although the D.C. CFO is the most powerful non-elected official in D.C., a number of D.C. employees are paid more than the CFO. D.C. must compete with both the private and public sectors for high-quality CFOs, and there are many private and public-sector CFOs who are paid more than the D.C. CFO.

This bill is critical to the financial operations of D.C. and is an important step to increase home rule for D.C. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Marijuana in Federally Assisted Housing Parity Act. This bill would permit the use of marijuana in federally assisted housing, including public housing and Section 8 housing, in compliance with the marijuana laws of the state (including the District of Columbia) where the property is located. Senator Cory Booker is introducing the companion bill.

Individuals living in federally assisted housing should not be denied admission, or fear eviction, for using a product that is legal in the state where they reside. Adult-use marijuana, medical marijuana or both are currently legal in 40 states, the District of Columbia and three territories, and approximately 90 percent of Americans support legalized medical marijuana. Under federal law, users of drugs that are illegal under federal law, including marijuana, are prohibited from being admitted into federally assisted housing. Moreover, federal law allows landlords to evict residents of federally assisted housing for using illegal drugs.

The federal government has begun to change its approach to marijuana. For example, for the last several years, Congress has prohibited the Department of Justice (DOJ) from using federal funds to prevent jurisdictions from implementing their medical marijuana laws. This bill would similarly allow individuals to use marijuana in federally assisted housing in compliance with a state's marijuana laws. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), like DOJ, should not be allowed to interfere with jurisdictions implementing their marijuana laws.

Under this bill, HUD must develop regulations that restrict smoking marijuana in federally assisted housing in the same manner and in the same locations as HUD restricts smoking tobacco in federally assisted housing.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill that would designate certain areas of the District of Columbia as an empowerment zone. This bill effectively would reauthorize many of the unique federal tax incentives for business investment in D.C. that expired in 2011. With the Trump administration's mass firings of federal employees, budget cuts and proposed relocation of federal agencies, as well as the continued prevalence of remote and hybrid work, this bill is especially important.

In 1993, Congress created the national empowerment zone program to encourage investment in low-income communities and delegated to federal agencies the authority to designate communities as empowerment zones. D.C. was not so designated. However, in 1997, working primarily with Republicans in Congress, I created federal tax incentives for investment in D.C. by businesses and individuals. The business tax incentives were similar to, but more generous than, those available under the national empowerment zone program. I got the D.C. tax incentives continuously reauthorized until 2011, when Congress refused to extend these tax incentives. At the same time, Congress extended the national empowerment zone program, and the program was last extended through 2025. Under this bill, low-income neighborhoods in D.C. would be treated as an empowerment zone as long as the national empowerment zone program remains in effect.

Congress has long recognized that the benefits of tax incentives for investment in low-income communities outweigh the costs, as it has continuously extended the national empowerment zone program.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Special Elections Home Rule Act. This bill would give the District of Columbia complete authority to set the date of special elections for local offices, like other jurisdictions. This bill would remove a limitation on D.C. that is not only inconsistent with the purpose of the D.C. Home Rule Act, which is to grant D.C. self-government, but is also harmful.

In 2012, I got legislation enacted that gave the D.C. Board of Elections (Board) more flexibility to set the date of special elections for local offices. Although I sought complete authority for D.C. to set the date of special elections, the 2012 law did not include this home- rule principle.

The Home Rule Act originally required the Board to hold special elections on the first Tuesday occurring more than 114 days after a vacancy and allowed the Board to schedule special elections on the same day as the next general election if that election occurred within 60 days from when a special election would otherwise have been held. This inflexibility led to special elections being held on religious holidays and forced D.C. to hold a special election separate from an upcoming general election, costing D.C. hundreds of thousands of dollars. The 2012 law requires the Board to hold a special election on a Tuesday occurring between 70 and 174 days after a vacancy. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce of a bill that would require the Library of Congress (LOC) to install the District of Columbia seal in the Main Reading Room of the Thomas Jefferson Building of the LOC. Specifically, the bill would require the LOC to install a stained glass panel depicting the D.C. seal among the panels depicting the seals of all the states and territories that existed when the Thomas Jefferson Building was constructed. The seals of Hawaii and Alaska are

the only state seals not included in the display because they were not states or territories when the building was constructed. The fact that these two states were not part of the Union at the time argues for the inclusion of D.C., which, after all, was the Nation's capital at the time. This omission was brought to my attention by a D.C. resident, Luis Landau, a former docent at the LOC.

D.C. residents 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 LOC, was burned, prompting construction of the Thomas Jefferson Building. It is, therefore, without question that D.C. and its residents should receive equal treatment among the stained glass panels 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 Thomas Jefferson Building, which is not open to the public, depicts the D.C. seal with the depiction of state seals on its ceiling. This precedent reinforces D.C.'s request to be represented among the stained glass panels in the Main Reading Room, which is open to the public.

Congress already includes D.C., or has corrected D.C.'s omission, when honoring the states. For example, each state is entitled to two statues in the Capitol, and D.C. has two statues in the Capitol. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 requires the armed services to display the D.C. flag whenever the flags of the states are displayed. Legislation gave D.C. a coin after D.C. was omitted from legislation creating coins for the states. It is long overdue to display the D.C. seal with the seals of the states in the Main Reading Room.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.