Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, March 24th was Equal Pay Day, which marked the number of additional days a woman must work to earn what a man earned the prior year. The 1963 Equal Pay Act (EPA), the first of the great civil rights statutes of the 1960s, has grown creaky with age and needs updating to reflect the new workforce, in which women work almost as much as men.

What maybe the best case for a stronger and updated EPA occurred in the Congress in 2003, when female custodians in the House and Senate won an EPA case after showing that female workers were paid a dollar less per hour for doing the same or similar work as males. Had those women not been represented by their union, they would have had an almost impossible task in using the rules for bringing and sustaining an EPA class action lawsuit.

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

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

The FPA would not tamper with the legal burden. Under the FPA, as under the EPA, the burden would be on the plaintiff to prove discrimination. The plaintiff must show that the reason for the disparate treatment is gender discrimination, not legitimate market factors.

Remedies to achieve comparable pay for men and women are not radical or unprecedented. State governments, in red and blue states alike, have shown that it is possible to eliminate the part of the pay gap that is due to discrimination. Twenty state governments have adjusted wages for female-dominated professions, raising pay for teachers, nurses, clerical workers, librarians, and other female-dominated jobs that paid less than comparable male-dominated jobs. Minnesota, for example, implemented a pay equity plan when it found that traditionally female jobs paid 20 percent less than comparable traditionally male jobs. There may well be some portion of the gender wage gap that is traceable to market factors, but 20 states have shown that you can tackle the gender discrimination-based wage gap without interfering in the market system. States generally have closed the wage gap over a period of four to five years at a one-time cost of no more than three to four percent of payroll.

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

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Pay Equity for All Act of 2021, which would help eliminate the gender and racial pay gap by prohibiting employers from asking job applicants for their salary history before making a job or salary offer. Even though many employers may not intentionally discriminate against applicants or employees based on gender, race or ethnicity, setting wages based on salary history can reinforce the wage gap. Members of historically disadvantaged groups often start their careers with unfair and artificially low wages compared to their white male counterparts, and the disparities are compounded from job to job throughout their careers. Last Congress, the House passed the Pay Equity for All Act as part of the Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 7).

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

There is much work to be done to address the wage gap. This bill would be an important step toward addressing these disparities.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, as the member representing the District of Columbia in Congress, I am proud and honored that the District has the oldest continuously active LGBTQ civil rights organization in the nation, the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, D.C. (GLAA).

GLAA has worked tirelessly for LGBTQ people in D.C. since its founding in April 1971. April of this year marks GLAA's 50th anniversary. This is an incredible milestone in the history of D.C.'s premier LGBTQ organization. Over the past 50 years, GLAA has worked tirelessly for the passage of many important legislative and policy measures that affect LGBTQ Americans, especially in the District.

Equality for all Americans has always been a priority for me in Congress, but equal treatment for LGBTQ people has long held even greater significance to me. Congressional opponents of equality for LGBTQ people have used D.C.'s unique status as a weapon against LGBTQ people in D.C. For example, I had to defeat many bills and amendments that would have blocked D.C.'s marriage equality law.

I was pleased to celebrate GLAA's work to help pass the D.C. Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act in 2010, which removed any doubt in the District of the right of same-sex couples to marry. The act served to recognize same-sex marriages five years before the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. This remarkable effort exhibits the dedication and success that GLAA has displayed throughout its history. Its work extends well beyond this and includes a commitment to strengthen and enforce the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977 to include protections for LGBTQ seniors and transgender Washingtonians.

GLAA has done extensive coalition-building and continues to defend the rights of LGBTQ youth and seniors, particularly when it comes to issues surrounding policing, healthcare, housing and consumer protection. What GLAA has done, and continues to accomplish, in these very personal and meaningful areas of life for LGBTQ residents should be applauded and uplifted. I have confidence that the future will bring even more success with GLAA's presence in our community, for which we should all be grateful.

I ask the House to join me in honoring GLAA and celebrating GLAA's 50 years of remarkable, distinguished service to and advocacy for the LGBTQ community in the District of Columbia.

Madam Speaker, today, I rise to introduce the Consider Teachers Act of 2021, which would improve the service obligation verification process for Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant Program recipients. The Senate passed a version of this bill last Congress, and Senators Mike Braun and Kyrsten Sinema are introducing the Consider Teachers Act of 2021 today.

The TEACH Grant Program was created by the federal government in 2007 to attract the best and brightest to the teaching profession in underserved communities. The TEACH Grant Program provides up to $4,000 a year in grants to students who agree to serve for at least four years as a full-time teacher in a high-need field in a public or private elementary or secondary school that serves low-income families. The obligation to teach four years must be completed within an eight-year period. Those who do not fulfill their service requirement but have been given grants have their grants converted into Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford Loans, which must be paid back with interest. These loans cannot revert to grants.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, 66 percent of the grants are converted into loans. Though 21,000 recipients have completed the program without conversion, 94,000 recipients have had their grants converted to loans. Those conversions are often triggered by small paperwork issues, such as submitting the annual form one day late or missing a date or signature.

In 2018, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) released a reconsideration process for recipients who had their grants converted into loans but had either fulfilled, or could still fulfill, their teaching requirements. The Department also turned back the clock to allow teachers who left the TEACH Grant Program once their grants were converted to give them more time to complete their requirements. These changes allowed the Department to lift the debt of 2,300 recipients.

This bill would codify this reconsideration process and mandate that the Department continue to implement it, creating a safeguard from changes in Department leadership. This bill would also outline yearly deadlines and notification requirements to rectify some of the TEACH Grant Program's previous administrative mishaps. Furthermore, with the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, many recipients have had trouble finding qualifying work. This bill would create a grace period for these individuals by extending the fulfillment period by three years for anyone who was fulfilling their obligations when the coronavirus pandemic began.

This past year has given us all a hard lesson in the invaluable service that teachers and educators provide to our society. As many young students have turned to homeschooling and remote learning, we have all come to appreciate the hard work and incredible talent of our teachers, who foster the mental, physical and emotional growth of our children every day. This bill ensures that that pipeline of talent for the teaching profession remains strong and that we do not unduly burden TEACH Program recipients, who have dedicated themselves to serving our most vulnerable communities.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the National Guard Housing Equity Act, which would codify into law a new National Guard Bureau (Bureau) policy on housing allowances.

Under federal law, National Guard members who are deployed on active duty for 30 days or less receive the Basic Allowance for Housing Reserve Component (BAH-RC). National Guard members who are deployed on active duty for 31 days or longer receive the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH). BAH-RC is less than BAH. This can lead to unfair results.

For example, when District of Columbia National Guard members were deployed to respond to protests in the District last summer, they were originally deployed on orders for less than 30 days, but ended up serving for over 30 consecutive days. However, they only received BAH-

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the police who are to receive Congressional Gold Medals: The U.S. Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, and the other law enforcement agencies that participated in protecting the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

The insurrection that day halted the final leg of congressional business declaring Joe Biden President of the United States. Yet, Congress was able to continue with its business that evening and early the next morning because of the help of the law enforcement officers we honor here today.

Then-President Donald Trump urged the crowd to the Capitol and delayed using his authority to deploy the D.C. National Guard in the country's moment of crisis. As a result, I have reintroduced a bill that would give the mayor of the District of Columbia control over the D.C. National Guard, and I am hopeful that this bill will be brought to the floor during this Congress.

It cannot be forgotten that the damage done would have been worse were it not for the Metropolitan Police Department, our local police, funded by D.C. taxpayers, who were was responsible for indispensable intervention when most Federal police forces did not appear, saving lives at the Capitol on January 6. I appreciate this recognition for the work of our local police force. An important way to reward them would be to ensure that the people they protect in the Nation's capital are given full and equal rights by passing the D.C. statehood bill.

Congratulations again to the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, the U.S. Capitol Police, and the other law enforcement agencies on these congressional gold medals, which are well deserved for the protection they provided to our democracy on January 6.

Madam Speaker, today, I rise to introduce the Washington Channel Public Access Act. This bill would prohibit the Secretary of the Army from finalizing, implementing or enforcing a proposed rule, or any other rule, that would restrict access to the Washington Channel (Channel) in the District of Columbia. The proposed rule is arbitrary, capricious and unnecessarily restricts recreational and commercial access to the Channel without providing any security benefits.

The proposed rule would establish a permanent restricted area in the Channel adjacent to Fort McNair, which would restrict access to the navigable portion of the Channel by narrowing the waterway where recreational and commercial vessels can traverse and prohibiting anchoring and mooring altogether. The U.S. Army Military District of Washington cites security needs at Fort McNair to justify the proposed rule.

Neighborhoods like the Navy Yard and the Wharf have reinvigorated community engagement on the waterfront, and the Channel is increasingly used for regional transportation and recreation. The stretch of the Channel past Fort McNair is the only connection to the Potomac River. The proposed rule would likely force kayaks, paddleboards and recreational boats into the same space as water taxis and river cruise ships, creating a potentially dangerous situation.

I hosted a public meeting in which community members expressed overwhelming opposition to the proposed rule, but military officials did not address the question of whether less restrictive measures could provide the same security. I then wrote asking Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to direct the U.S. Army Military District of Washington and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to withdraw the proposed rule and to prohibit these agencies from proposing a similar rule. In response, the U.S. Army indicated that the proposed rule will not be finalized until an appointee of President Biden can review it. Despite this positive response, this bill is necessary to ensure the proposed rule, or any other rule that would restrict public access, does not go into effect.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, today, I rise to introduce the National Children's Museum Act, which would require the General Services Administration (GSA) to enter into a cooperative agreement with the National Children's Museum (NCM), a congressionally designated museum, to allow the museum to remain in the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, a federally owned building in the nation's capital, without charge for the duration of its existing lease. The National Building Museum operates under such an agreement. Last Congress, on November 17, 2020, the House passed this bill by voice vote.

This bill would allow the NCM, the nation's first combination children's museum and science center, to remain centrally located in the nation's capital for the benefit of the millions who visit and live in the District and the national capital region (NCR). Originally named the Capital Children's Museum, the NCM was a staple in D.C. for decades. The institution opened in 1974 in a former convent on H Street Northeast.

In 2003, Congress recognized the immense value in having a children's museum in D.C. and officially designated the museum as the NCM. Now, the museum is bringing new and innovative science, technology, engineering, arts and math (STEAM) exhibits to the nation's capital, building on more than 30 years of educating D.C. children and families. Despite the many benefits it brings to the nation's capital, the NCM is an outlier. It is the only congressionally designated museum expected to pay rent in a federal building.

Importantly, this bill would relieve concerns about the ability of the NCM to survive the coronavirus pandemic. When the museum reopened last year in the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, it immediately attracted many visitors from throughout the NCR and the nation, but was forced by the coronavirus pandemic to close 18 days later. At this time, the museum remains closed until further notice. Still, the museum has continued to offer valuable STEAM resources to our children as they navigate these new challenging learning circumstances, including over 75 at-home experiment and project video programs, monthly podcasts, virtual field trips and a Climate Action Heroes Digital Exhibit, among other resources.

This bill would allow the NCM to remain centrally located in the nation's capital for the benefit of the millions who visit and live in the District and the NCR.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the extraordinary service of Josephine Morse, who served in the House Office of General Counsel as a Deputy General Counsel. During her tenure, Ms. Morse, a District of Columbia resident, played an integral role in safeguarding the legal interests of the House and its Members, Officers, and employees in federal court litigation involving issues of the highest institutional importance.

Ms. Morse provided invaluable legal counsel and representation to numerous House committees, greatly assisting them both in fulfilling their constitutionally authorized oversight functions and defending those prerogatives in litigation. Ms. Morse provided vital legal counsel to the House in both impeachments of President Trump and in defense of longstanding institutional prerogatives. Those prerogatives included the House's constitutional authority under the Appropriations Clause and the power of House committees to issue subpoenas for both documents and testimony from the White House and Executive Branch agencies.

Of particular importance to the District of Columbia, Ms. Morse's legal work in litigation involving the District's quest to obtain the fundamental right of voting representation in Congress was exceptional, and her oral advocacy on behalf of the House's position in support of voting representation for the District before a three-judge district court was highly effective.

Ms. Morse's work on behalf of the House was of the highest caliber, and I have no doubt that the Office of Management and Budget, which she recently joined, will benefit from her outstanding legal counsel. On behalf of the entire House community, I thank Ms. Morse for her dedicated service to the House, and I wish her the very best in all of her future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Membership on Capitol Police Board Act, which would make the chief of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) an ex officio, non-voting member of the Capitol Police Board (Board). The Board oversees the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) and security for the U.S. Capitol complex and is comprised of three voting members (the House Sergeant at Arms, the Senate Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper and the Architect of the Capitol) and one ex officio, non-voting member (the USCP chief). My bill would give the MPD chief the same status on the Board as the USCP chief.

The events and aftermath of the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, demonstrate the need for D.C. membership on the Board. Not only would the MPD chief's membership on the Board help improve coordination between USCP and MPD, which helped save the Capitol and its occupants after USCP was overrun during the attack, it would force the Board to consider the interests of D.C. residents in its decision-making. The Board's decisions affect D.C. residents more than any other Americans, but no member of the Board has any obligation to consider the perspective and needs of D.C. residents. D.C. residents continue to bear the brunt of the security decisions the Board has made since the attack. For example, the fencing around the Capitol complex has forced D.C. emergency vehicles and residents to take detours and has prevented access to the Capitol grounds, which are used by neighborhood residents for recreation and relaxation.

I support the calls to evaluate whether the Board is the right mechanism to oversee security at the Capitol, but as long as the Board is in existence, D.C. should have membership on it.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, with final passage of President Biden's American Rescue Plan expected tomorrow, the priorities I pressed for, including $1,400 in direct payments per person and $26 billion in rental assistance makes the Rescue Plan live up to its name.

The rescue extends to the District of Columbia, which retrieves $755 million taken from the District when Republicans treated the District as a territory in the CARES Act. Instead, the new bill treats D.C. as a State as usual because D.C. residents pay full Federal taxes, and it funds D.C. for city, State, and county levels because D.C. provides services at all three levels.

This bill resisted the Republican plan for less money because the American people want to be rescued now, not later. The American Rescue Plan Act will hasten doing our business together again on this House floor and getting the American people back to business and to school.

Madam 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). 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 Kotz'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.

In all this back and forth between two agencies navigating a convoluted authority structure, a multi-million-dollar procurement funded by taxpayers has gone to waste, adding to the hundreds of millions of dollars the SEC has previously squandered in its real estate endeavors. 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.

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

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

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

This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to ensure the removal of the statue from Lafayette Park and to donate the statue and marble base to a museum or similar entity so that it can be accompanied by the appropriate historical context, not be prominently displayed in the nation's capital. The next generation can learn from this painful chapter in our history without celebrating it.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

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

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

The fountain was established in 1932 by Congress. In 1990, the Chevy Chase Land Company also added the plaque next to the fountain. A resolution to remove Newlands' name from the fountain was first introduced by the D.C. Chevy Chase Advisory Neighborhood Commission in 2014. On July 27, 2020, the commission voted unanimously to ask the National Park Service to remove the bronze plaque bearing Newlands' name and to begin discussion on a new name for the fountain. This bill would remove Newlands' name from the fountain and remove the plaque entirely.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Chief Financial Officer Salary Home Rule Act, which would give the District of Columbia the authority to raise the pay of its Chief Financial Officer (CFO). There is no reason the District should not have the authority to set the pay of every local official, who are paid with local funds, as a matter of its existing home-rule authority.

In 2013, Congress enacted a law that gave the District more authority to set the CFO's pay. However, Congress did not give D.C. full and complete authority over this local matter. This bill would give D.C. the authority to set the CFO's pay commensurate with its best judgment based on factors such as comparisons with similar positions elsewhere, the competitive market and other factors generally used in determining pay. I was able to get some needed changes in 2013 by amending the Home Rule Act to change the CFO's salary from a fixed rate of pay that was tied to the federal pay schedule to a maximum allowable pay, or ceiling, tied to the federal pay schedule. That ceiling was and continues to be substantially higher than the fixed rate. However, D.C. should have full control over setting the salaries of its own employees.

I introduced the 2013 bill after a D.C. CFO search committee indicated that the fixed rate of pay was not high enough to attract the best talent needed for this complex and demanding job. The responsibilities of the CFO, a position created by Congress, are unique in the United States. The CFO is extraordinarily powerful and independent. The District cannot obligate or expend funds without the CFO's approval, and the CFO can be terminated only ``for cause.'' My bill would not allow the CFO's salary to be lowered and maintains the ``for cause'' termination provision, so as to preserve the independence of the office. The District needs the authority to pay the rate necessary to retain and attract the best CFOs, especially since the District must compete with the private sector for highly qualified CFOs.

This is an important step to increase necessary home-rule authority for the District, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.