Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1262) to establish a task force on improvements for certain notices to airmen, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam 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 H.R. 1262, as amended.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 1262, the Notice to Airmen Improvement Act, introduced by Mr. Stauber and Mr. DeSaulnier.

H.R. 1262 will create a task force to review existing methods for presenting notices to airmen. Notices to airmen provide pilots with essential and real-time information regarding abnormalities or issues in the National Airspace System. For example, notices to airmen alert pilots to potential hazards in the airspace or at an airport, such as a closed runway or taxiway. While pilots are required to review all notices to airmen before flight, there has been concern about the lengthiness and completeness of the critical information contained in notices to airmen and how the information is displayed to, and organized for, pilots.

Under H.R. 1262, the task force will determine best practices for organizing and presenting flight operations information to pilots in the most optimal manner and make recommendations to improve the presentation of notices to airmen while ensuring their accuracy and completeness.

Recommendations from the task force could help prevent future aviation accidents and near-accidents. We saw, in July 2017, an Air Canada A320 almost land on top of five jetliners, with more than a thousand people on board, awaiting takeoff at San Francisco International Airport, before executing a go-around. The aircraft came as close as 60 feet above one of the planes on the ground.

Thankfully, there were no injuries, but this could have been catastrophic. The National Transportation Safety Board determined the probable cause of the incident was the pilots' misidentification of the taxiway for a runway, based in part on their ineffective review of notices to airmen before flight.

Notices to airmen and airwomen can and must be better for pilots. I expect the task force established under H.R. 1262 will lead to recommendations that will improve aviation safety.

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in remembering the life of Lloyd Price, a longtime District of Columbia resident and great R&B vocalist and performer, who died on May 3, 2021.

Lloyd Price, born in Kenner, Louisiana, on March 9, 1933, came to the District after serving in the U.S. Army. Growing up, he received formal training in the trumpet and piano and sang in his church's gospel choir. Upon returning from his military service, he formed KRC Records with songwriter Harold Logan.

He had number one hits, such as Lawdy Miss Clawdy, Stagger Lee, Personality, I'm Going to Get Married and Where Were You on Our Wedding Day. In 1998, Price was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and in 2019, he was inducted into the National Rhythm & Blues Hall of Fame.

He was also a great businessman. He produced some of the greatest fights in the history of boxing, such as The Thriller in Manila and The Rumble in the Jungle.

Other business ventures included founding a construction company, which erected middle-income housing in the Bronx and Staten Island. He also managed Lloyd Price Icon Food Brands, which makes a line of Southern-style foods.

Madam Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring Lloyd Price, a great singer and longtime resident of D.C. I extend my deepest condolences to Lloyd's family.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Local Juror Non-Discrimination Act of 2021. This bill would clarify that D.C. residents may not be excluded or disqualified from jury service in the D.C. Superior Court based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Specifically, my bill would clarify that ``sex,'' which is a protected class under the non-discrimination law that applies to jurors in the D.C. Superior Court, includes sexual orientation and gender identity. Under the Home Rule Act, Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over title 11 of the D.C. Code (relating to organization and jurisdiction of the local D.C. courts).

The District has one of the strongest non-discrimination laws in the country, including protecting individuals based on sexual orientation and gender identity. However, under the Home Rule Act, the District does not have the authority to make this non-discrimination law applicable to jurors in the D.C. Superior Court. Therefore, until the District is given complete control over the organization and jurisdiction of its local courts, an act of Congress is required to make this important change to protect the rights of all D.C. residents. This bill is necessary to protect jurors in the D.C. Superior Court from discrimination.

My bill is similar to the Juror Non-Discrimination Act of 2021 (H.R. 1140), which would provide the same protections for jurors in federal court. I am a proud cosponsor of that bill.

I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Federal Officials Residency Requirement Equality Act, which would require certain federal officials who serve the District of Columbia to live within its boundaries. In nearly every other jurisdiction in the United States, federal district court judges, federal circuit court judges, U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Marshals and federal court clerks are required by federal law to reside within the jurisdictions where they have been appointed--but these same officials appointed to serve only the people of the District are not bound by this same requirement. Even in the territories, such officials are required to live in those jurisdictions, other than the U.S. Attorney and U.S. Marshal appointed for the Northern Mariana Islands who at the same time are serving in the same capacity in another jurisdiction. The only other exceptions exist for such officials appointed to the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of New York, which are the only districts that serve different parts of the same city. My bill would put the District on equal footing with almost every other jurisdiction by ensuring that our federal judges, U.S. Marshals, U.S. Attorney and federal clerk live among the residents they have been appointed to serve, in keeping with the federal law that applies elsewhere in the United States.

The requirement that these federal officials live in the jurisdictions they serve is significantly related to knowledge of the effect of their decisions, an important reason the residency requirement is enshrined in federal law. As stated in the official commentary to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, ``a judge should not become isolated from the society in which the judge lives.'' The same holds true for other federal officials. My bill recognizes that the District deserves federal officials with the same understanding and links to the community as Congress has seen fit to require for federal officials in other jurisdictions.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the Women Who Worked on the Home Front World War II Memorial Act, which would authorize the establishment of a memorial on federal land in the District of Columbia commemorating the efforts of the 18 million American women who kept the home front running during World War II. I thank Senators Tammy Duckworth and Marsha Blackburn for introducing the companion bill in the Senate. The House passed this bill by voice vote last Congress.

As a teenager, Raya Kenney, the founder of the non-profit Women Who Worked on the Home Front Foundation and my constituent, came up with the idea of a memorial to honor the women on the home front who supported the World War II effort. She rightfully questioned why the women on the home front whose efforts were so instrumental in maintaining the stability of the country during World War II have not received as much recognition for their contributions as the men who fought bravely in World War II.

This bill would authorize the Women Who Worked on the Home Front Foundation to establish a memorial to honor these women. The memorial is designed to be interactive and to educate visitors on the important roles women played during World War II. Between 1940 and 1945, the percentage of women in the workforce increased from 27 percent to nearly 37 percent, and by 1945 one in four married women worked outside of the home. The work done by women on the home front opened doors for women in the workplace widely and had a profound effect on the job market going forward. As a result of their efforts, millions of American women on the home front redefined ``women's work'' and paved the way for future generations.

Many women also played critical roles in support of the war effort. More than 10,000 women served behind the scenes of World War II as code breakers. Due to the classified nature of their work, they did not receive recognition for their tireless efforts until recently. Women were also trained to fly military aircraft so male pilots could leave for combat duty overseas. More than 1,100 female civilian volunteers flew nearly every type of military aircraft as part of the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP) program. WASP flew planes from factories to bases, transported cargo and participated in simulation strafing and target missions. These women were not given full military status until 1977, and it was not until 2010 that they were recognized with the Congressional Gold Medal.

Women have been historically underrepresented in our memorials, particularly the memorials on federal land in the nation's capital. It is fitting to authorize a memorial that would allow millions of visitors to D.C. to understand and honor the heroic efforts of these women and their lasting impact on the fabric of our society.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia National Guard Federal Employee Leave Fairness Act, which would correct a legislative drafting error and clarify that members of the D.C. National Guard (DCNG) who are federal civilian employees are entitled to leave without loss in

pay or time from their civilian employment when they are mobilized by the DCNG.

In 1899, Congress codified in the D.C. Code the original authority for entitlement to leave when federal civilian employees were mobilized by the DCNG. In 1968, that authority was moved into 5 U.S.C. 6323. In that same year, Congress authorized two additional leave entitlements in 5 U.S.C. 6323 as well as established an offset provision in 5 U.S.C. 5519 referencing those two additional leave entitlements. However, because the U.S. Code had not yet been updated to include the earlier DCNG authority, the Code contained a duplicate subsection, one referring to DCNG mobilizations and one to a more general leave entitlement for the National Guard and Reserves. My bill would restore Congress' original intent regarding DCNG mobilizations by correcting this legislative drafting error and clarifying that the pay and benefits of DCNG members who are federal civilian employees are not subject to the offset in 5 U.S.C. 5519.

The only change required to fix this leislative drafting error is to remove the erroneous reference to DCNG mobilizations in 5 U.S.C. 5519. This change would positively impact the hundreds of dedicated federal civilian employees who are also members of the DCNG, providing them the full pay and benefits they deserve.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, as the Congresswoman from the District of Columbia, where the January 6 insurrection occurred, I was one of the first Members of Congress to call for and introduce legislation to create a 9/11-style commission to investigate the attack and to ensure that it never happens again. I strongly support the commission bill.

The supplemental security appropriations bill provides $66.7 million to eliminate the long-running deficit in the Federally-funded D.C. Emergency Planning and Security Fund. That fund pays for the unique public safety and security costs D.C. incurs as the Nation's capital, and is designed to cover the District's costs up front, so that D.C. does not have to expend local funds for Federal purposes and seek an appropriation to be reimbursed after the fact.

Over the last several years, our Republican colleagues have opposed fully funding the D.C. Fund. The January 6 insurrection shows Congress must never shortchange security in the Nation's Capitol again.

I also appreciate that the appropriations bill would mirror two of my bills.

I also appreciate that the appropriations bill would mirror two of my bills, prohibiting the use of funds in the bill to install permanent aboveground fencing at the Capitol complex, and requiring Capitol Police officers to wear body cameras.

In February, I introduced legislation to prohibit funds for permanent fencing at the Capitol complex, and in March the House passed my bill to require Federal police officers to wear body cameras as part of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the Marijuana in Federally Assisted Housing Parity Act. My 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 where the property is located.

Individuals living in federally assisted housing should not be denied admission, or fear eviction, for using a legal product. Adult use and/ or medical marijuana is currently legal in 36 states and the District of Columbia, and over 90 percent of Americans support legalized medical marijuana. Under current 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 it approach to marijuana. In 2018, the Food and Drug Administration approved Eipdiolex, which is derived from marijuana. Eipdiolex is used to treat children who suffer from seizures. Notably, the medicine does not contain tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the psychoactive component in marijuana. 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. HUD, like DOJ, should not be allowed to enforce federal marijuana laws where states have taken action to legalize marijuana.

Under my bill, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) must also develop regulations that restrict smoking marijuana in federally assisted housing in the same manner and to the same locations as the Secretary restricts smoking tobacco in federally assisted housing.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act of 2021, a version of which I have introduced since 1994, after working with the District of Columbia residents who were responsible for the Nuclear Disarmament and Economic Conversion ballot initiative passed by D.C. voters in 1993. My bill still requires the United States to sign and ratify an international agreement to disable and dismantle America's nuclear weapons, to provide for strict control of fissile material and radioactive waste and to use nuclear-free energy. In lieu of joining such an agreement, this version of the bill also gives the United States the option to ratify the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (Treaty). Many nations have already signed the Treaty. The Treaty was drafted by the United Nations in conferences in March and July of 2017, which is why I did not include it in my previous bills. According to the United Nations, the Treaty is ``a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.'' I am pleased by the international progress on this important issue.

The bill continues to provide that the funds used for nuclear weapons be redirected to human and infrastructure needs, such as housing, health care, Social Security, restoring the environment, and creating carbon-free, nuclear-free energy. The conversion to a peace economy would occur when the President certifies to Congress that all countries possessing nuclear weapons have begun elimination under an international treaty or other legal agreement.

Our country still has a long list of urgent domestic needs that have been put on the back burner. As the only nation that has used nuclear weapons in war, and that still possesses one of the largest nuclear weapons arsenals, my bill would help the United States reestablish its moral leadership in the world by redirecting funds that would otherwise go to nuclear weapons to urgent domestic needs.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentlewoman, for her leadership on this D.C. statehood bill.

Congress has both the moral obligation and the constitutional authority to pass H.R. 51. 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.

The State of Washington, D.C., would consist of 66 of the 68 miles of the present-day Federal District. The Federal District would be 2 square miles, and Congress would retain plenary authority over it.

H.R. 51 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 State was admitted by constitutional amendment, and 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--100 square miles. 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. H.R. 51 repeals the enabling act for the 23rd Amendment, and the 23rd Amendment itself would be quickly repealed. In any event, the 23rd Amendment does not establish a minimum size or 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 of 712,000 is larger than that of two States. D.C. pays more Federal taxes per capita than any State and pays more Federal taxes than 21 States of the Union. The District of Columbia's gross domestic product is larger than 17 States. In 2016, 86 percent of D.C. residents voted for statehood. D.C. residents have been petitioning for voting representation in Congress and local autonomy for 220 years.

Congress has a choice. It can continue to exclude D.C. residents from the democratic process, forcing them to watch from the sidelines as Congress votes on Federal and D.C. laws, and to treat them, in the words of Frederick Douglass, as ``aliens, not citizens, but subjects.''

Or it can live up to our Nation's founding principles and join the 54 percent of Americans--that is 54 percent, Mr. Speaker, and growing--who support D.C. statehood and pass H.R. 51.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding and for his support of H.R. 51.

The rule before us is not ordinary. It is the prelude to history, and I use that word advisedly. Last Congress, the House passed the D.C. statehood bill, the first time either Chamber of Congress had passed the bill. This Congress with Democrats controlling the House, Senate, and White House, D.C. statehood is within reach for the first time in history.

As a result of education from House proceedings like today's, 54 percent of the American people support D.C. statehood according to a wide-ranging poll that has just been released, and we predict that with increasing exposure, that percentage will continue to rise.

For the 220 years since D.C. became our capital, District residents, who have had all of the obligations of citizenship, including paying full Federal taxes and serving in the Armed Forces, have been excluded from much of American democracy. The citizens who live in our Nation's Capital have never had voting representation on the floor of either Chamber of Congress, and Congress has always had the final say on their local affairs. This is uniquely un-American. It is undemocratic.

For me, it is deeply personal. My own family has lived in D.C. since my great-grandfather Richard Holmes as a slave walked away from a plantation in Virginia and made his way to D.C. almost 200 years ago. Richard Holmes made it as far as D.C., a walk to freedom but not to equal citizenship so far for our family.

During debate on D.C. statehood Thursday, we will make the case that Congress has the constitutional authority to admit the State of Washington, D.C., and that the State would meet all the elements Congress has considered in admission decisions.

For now, it is sufficient to note that throughout its existence in the United States the United States has flattered itself as a democracy, even though it is the only democratic country that denies voting representation in the national legislature to the residents of the capital. With passage of this rule today and the D.C. statehood bill on Thursday, the United States will be one step closer to deserving the term democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the American Bar Association supporting passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act.

American Bar Association,

April 13, 2021.

Re ABA Urges Passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Bar

Association (ABA), the largest voluntary association of

lawyers and legal professionals in the world. I am writing to

urge you to vote for passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act,

which would update the Equal Pay Act of 1963 enacted by

Congress almost 60 years ago to prohibit gender-based pay

inequality. This legislation, which is expected to come to

the floor this week, has the support of working men and women

across the country who want this nation to live up to its

expressed commitment to equal pay for equal work.

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits an employer from paying

unequal wages to male and female workers who perform jobs

under similar work conditions that require substantially

equal skill, effort, and responsibility unless there is a

legitimate reason for a pay differential.

The Paycheck Fairness Act does not alter the basic scheme

of this statute or impose unreasonable burdens on employers;

indeed, the majority of its proposed changes are borrowed

from other civil rights statutes that have proved more

effective in eradicating workplace discrimination.

We would like to respond to some persistent misperceptions

regarding this important legislation:

Enactment of this bill will not compel businesses to pay

their female workforce substantially more money to eliminate

the existing wage gap. The purpose of this bill is to update

the Equal Pay Act, which only applies in situations where

women or men are receiving unequal pay for equal work. It

does not create a new mandate. Employers already have a legal

obligation to pay men and women equal wages for equal work

unless there is a legitimate reason for the differential.

Enactment of this bill will not interject the government

into the pay decisions of businesses. The Paycheck Fairness

Act does not tell employers what factors to use to set pay;

it only requires that pay decisions are job- and business-

related.

Enactment of this bill will not make employers liable for

any and every wage differential. An employer will still have

four affirmative defenses and will not be guilty of wage

discrimination if a pay differential is based on (i)

seniority, (ii) merit, (iii) a system that measures quantity

or quality of production, or (iv) a ``factor other than

sex.'' 29 U.S.C. 206(d)(l). The only difference is that

Paycheck Fairness Act will resolve uncertainty in the law

over how to apply the fourth defense by redefining it as ``a

bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training,

or experience.''

Enactment of a provision to clarify the ``factor other than

sex'' defense will not eviscerate legitimate use of the

defense. It is intended to prevent employers from asserting

that unequal pay was the result of market force-derived

excuses such as prior salaries or negotiation outcomes. A

bona fide factor other than sex must be job-related,

consistent with business necessity, and account for the

entire differential in compensation at issue. The only time

this defense would not apply would be in situations where an

alternative employment practice is available that would serve

the same business purpose without producing the wage

differential and the employer has refused to adopt it.

Enactment of this bill will not encourage more lawsuits and

jeopardize post-pandemic economic recovery. The bill is

designed resolve uncertainties in the law and increase

employer compliance with the Equal Pay Act, not to encourage

more lawsuits.

The bill's strengthened remedies, which align with those

available in other employment discrimination statutes, will

encourage employers to review their wage-setting practices

and rectify those that are based on invalid justifications.

Men and women who are paid fairly have no incentive to

jeopardize their jobs and subject themselves to costly, time-

consuming, and emotionally taxing lawsuits brought against

their employers.

The bill's clarification of the ``factor other than sex''

defense will not spawn new litigation. Instead, it will

provide guidance to the courts and resolve uncertainty in the

law. The standard, which is adapted from Title VII

discrimination cases and codified in the Civil Rights Act of

1991, is one with which courts already are familiar.

The bill will help strengthen the economy by improving the

present and future economic welfare of working women, who

comprise about one-half of the workforce and are the primary

breadwinner in more than 12 million American families.

We urge you to demonstrate your commitment to equal pay for

equal work by voting for the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Thank you for your consideration of our views.

Sincerely,

Patricia Lee Refo.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to strongly support H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act, a critically important bill.

As the first woman to chair the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I enforced the Equal Pay Act. I particularly appreciate that H.R. 7 would bring long-awaited strength to the EPA.

I especially appreciate that Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, a great champion for equal pay, has included my Pay Equity for All Act in H.R. 7, where I will focus today.

The Pay Equity for All Act would prohibit employers from asking job applicants their salary history. Even though many employers may not intentionally discriminate against applicants or employees based on gender, race, or ethnicity, setting wages based on salary history is routinely done in the workplace and can reinforce the wage gap. Evidence clearly shows that members of historically disadvantaged groups often start their careers with unfair and artificially low wages compared to their White male counterparts, and these disparities are compounded from job to job.

Job and salary offers should be based on an applicant's skill and merit, not on salary history. This bill addresses this problem by assessing penalties against employers who ask applicants for their salary history during the interview process.

Madam Speaker, today I introduce the District of Columbia Juror Pay Parity Act, which would require that D.C. Superior Court jurors receive the same pay as federal jurors. The importance of jurors to our system of law is driven home by the current trial of Derek Chauvin for the death of George Floyd.

Currently, Superior Court jurors are paid $40 per day, and, under the Home Rule Act, only the D.C. courts and Congress have the authority to increase Superior Court juror pay. In the fiscal year 2018 omnibus appropriations bill, Congress increased federal juror pay to $50 per day, the first increase to federal juror pay in 28 years. My bill would give Superior Court jurors the same pay.

Under the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33), Congress took responsibility for paying for the D.C. courts and other state-like functions provided by D.C. The D.C. courts, however, have always been under the control of Congress, even when they were funded by the District. The Home Rule Act prohibits the District government from enacting any law relating to Title 11 of the D.C. Code. Title 11 provides that the Board of Judges of the Superior Court sets juror pay, but that the pay may not exceed the pay of federal jurors. Therefore, this bill, or action by the D.C. courts, is necessary to increase Superior Court juror pay.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia National Guard Commanding General Residency Act, which would require the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard to reside in the District of Columbia, just as States and territories can require that the top official of their National Guard reside within their State or territory.

The D.C. National Guard is a Federal entity. Currently, the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard is not required to reside in the District. Congress has justifiably required that certain Federal officials reside in the jurisdiction they serve to ensure in-depth knowledge of the unique issues and challenges residents and these Federal officials face. Additionally, the Mayor of D.C., unlike the Governors of the States and territories, cannot deploy the National Guard, making residency of the Commanding General of the National Guard that much more important, though my District of Columbia National Guard Home Rule Act (H.R. 657) would give the Mayor the authority to deploy the D.C. National Guard. The appointment of the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard is made by the President, not the Mayor, whereas the top official of the National Guards in the States and territories are usually appointed by the Governor. All of these are compelling reasons why the Commanding General of the D.C. Guard should be required to be a D.C. resident.

This bill follows in the footsteps of several other bills that I have introduced that would require Federal officials serving D.C. exclusively to reside in the District. For example, my District of Columbia Federal Officials Residency Equality Act (H.R. 3785, 116th Congress) would require the Federal district court judges, Federal circuit court judges, U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals for the District to live in D.C. I have also previously introduced a bill (H.R. 4184, 116th Congress) that would require the Director of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia and the Director of the District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency to reside in the District.

With the nomination of the current D.C. National Guard Commanding General, Major General William J. Walker, to be the House Sergeant at Arms, this bill is more timely than ever. Moreover, the attack of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, and the events at Lafayette Square on June 1, 2020, are prime examples of why this bill is so important. Residents of the District would feel at least somewhat more confident in the D.C. National Guard if the Commanding General were required to be a D.C. resident.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the Washington, DC Area Helicopter Noise Information Exchange Act of 2021, which would require the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to implement a Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommendation to create a mechanism to exchange information about helicopter noise in the Washington, DC area between FAA and helicopter operators. I am pleased that Representatives Gerald E. Connolly and Donald S. Beyer, Jr. from Virginia and Representatives Jamie Raskin, Anthony G. Brown and David J. Trone from Maryland join me in introducing this bill, underscoring its regional importance.

Residents of the District of Columbia and the national capital region (NCR) have been plagued by helicopter noise for years. Yet, there is no centralized complaint system nor any comprehensive data about helicopter noise in the NCR. In January 2019, Representatives Connolly, Beyer, Raskin, Brown, Trone and I wrote GAO requesting that it conduct a study of helicopter noise in the NCR. In that letter, we wrote, ``Many of our constituents live with the impacts of regular helicopter noise that interrupts sleep patterns, causes their homes to shake and negatively impacts their quality of life. While disturbances from helicopter noise have been a longstanding problem for some, others have noted recent increases in the frequency and severity of helicopter noise in their neighborhoods. We understand that helicopter activity is an essential part of law enforcement, military and medical operations and appreciate the critical efforts of employees serving in those sectors. However, we also believe that, through information collection, analysis and coordination, we can identify strategies to minimize the negative impacts of helicopter activity without impeding the work of the agencies operating helicopters within the region.''

In response to our request, GAO announced in June 2019 that it would conduct the study. GAO released its report in January 2021. GAO found that FAA's current ability to work with helicopter operators in the NCR is limited because of the absence of effective information sharing mechanisms. GAO recommended that FAA direct its Office of Environment and Energy to develop a mechanism to exchange helicopter noise information with operators in the NCR. FAA concurred with GAO's recommendation, but this bill would require FAA to develop such a mechanism.

This bill would direct the creation of a more effective information sharing mechanism, which would also allow for better, more comprehensive data on helicopter noise complaints. This data would in turn help us develop solutions to address helicopter noise.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.