Floor Statements

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

The Emancipation Statue was dedicated on April 14, 1876, the 11th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln's assassination. Although formerly enslaved Americans paid for this statue, it was designed and sculpted without their input, and it shows. The paternalistic statue depicting a Black man on his knees in front of President Lincoln fails to recognize African Americans' agency in pressing for their own emancipation.

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

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

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

This statue was authorized, not by the District, but by Congress in 1898, when the District had no home rule. The statue was constructed using both federal and private funds. The Freemasons, of which Pike was a member, donated the majority of the money needed to build and install the statue in 1901. I oppose destroying Confederate statues, because I believe they should be moved to more appropriate settings, like museums, to avoid erasing an important part of history from which Americans must continue to learn.

Pike, a Confederate general who served dishonorably and was forced to resign in disgrace, represents the worst of the Confederacy. Soldiers under his command were found to have mutilated the bodies of Union soldiers, and he was ultimately imprisoned after his fellow Confederate officers reported that he had been misappropriating funds. Adding to the dishonor of taking up arms against the United States, Pike dishonored even his Confederate military service. He certainly has absolutely no claim to be memorialized in the nation's capital. Even those who do not want Confederate statues removed will have to justify according Pike any honor considering his dishonorable history.

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

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, today, I, along with Representative Donald S. Beyer Jr., introduce the Federal Police Camera and Accountability Act of 2021. This bill would require uniformed federal law enforcement officers to wear body cameras and federal marked police vehicles to have dashboard cameras. It would also require the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study on federal police officers' training, vehicle pursuits, use of force and interaction with citizens. Last Congress, we introduced a virtually identical bill, which was included in the House-passed George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020.

After the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, the urgency of this bill has become even more apparent. The U.S. Capitol Police tried to stop the mob attack, but without body cameras, we have been forced to rely on social media, cameras in the Capitol and public reporting to learn what happened. The events at Lafayette Square last year, where U.S. Park Police and other federal police officers forcibly removed peaceful protestors so the president could hold a photo op, is another recent example of why our bill is needed.

On November 17, 2017, Bijan Ghaisar was fatally shot in his car by uniformed U.S. Park Police officers in Fairfax County, Virginia, after a vehicle pursuit on the George Washington Memorial Parkway. Video of this shooting only became available through a camera in a Fairfax County Police Department patrol car that was providing backup. Had it not been for that footage, which was recorded and released by that local police department, the public would not have had access to the circumstances surrounding Mr. Ghaisar's death. Moreover, the footage revealed concerns about the Park Police's pursuit and engagement policies.

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

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

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the 41st Annual Salute of the Black Nurses Association of Greater Washington, D.C. Area, Inc. The Black Nurses Association (BNA) of Greater Washington, D.C. Area, Inc. (GWDCA), chartered in 1975, endeavors to support the mission of the National Black Nurses Association (NBNA) and to provide services to residents in the D.C. area.

BNA of GWDCA acts as a vehicle for cohesion and solidarity among Black nurses to ensure the continuity of common heritage. The BNA of GWDCA hosted its first Annual Salute to a Black Nurse on February 14, 1981, at St. Elizabeths Hospital to recognize the contributions of nurses in the community and to celebrate Black History Month. ``The Salute'' has become a signature community program, where one practicing nurse is awarded ``Nurse of the Year'' and several nursing students are awarded scholarships. Meedie Bardonille RN has been selected as the 2021 ``Nurse of the Year.''

BNA of GWDCA has a distinguished legacy of community service with a focus on addressing specific health problems of the Black consumer and health care disparities. Past programs have included participation in the National Black Nurses National Hypertension Project and the National Depression Project and partnerships with the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society. BNA of GWDCA's signature community service project provides community-based health assessments and teaching through church-based and collaborative health fairs and partnerships with the D.C. Department of Health, Office of Immunizations, and the Washington Hospital Center.

Importantly, we are grateful that in response to the critical shortage of nurses in all areas of practice, BNA of GWDCA's ``Choose Nursing Project'' provides career information and

mentoring in the field for students in D.C. area middle and high schools. As a chapter, BNA of GWDCA continues to carry the mission of ``Empowering the Community through Education, Service and Caring'' and support the NBNA's theme, ``The Art and Science of Nursing.''

Particularly during the COVID-19 crisis, the nation understands that nurses are indispensable. It is more important than ever to recognize Black nurses, whose service has been overlooked for far too long.

I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in honoring the Black Nurses Association of Greater Washington, D.C. Area, Inc. for 46 years devoted to improving the lives of D.C. area residents and the profession of nursing.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the No Fencing at the United States Capitol Complex Act, which would prohibit the

construction of new permanent fencing on the grounds of the United States Capitol complex. Since the insurrectionist attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, the Capitol complex has become an untraversable fortress surrounded by frightening fences capped with barbed wire, typical of authoritarian regimes. In recent days, some officials, including the Acting Capitol Police Chief, have suggested that fencing become a permanent security feature of the Capitol complex. Although I agree that more needs to be done to protect the Capitol complex, the failure of Capitol security leaders to plan for the predictable and openly announced attack on the Capitol does not justify closing the complex from the public, to whom it belongs. We can and must maintain our commitment to security without sacrificing public access by using the least restrictive means necessary to address security.

The attack on the Capitol, which had little to do with the lack of permanent fencing, was the greatest intelligence and security failure in the history of our Nation's capital. There were countless security failures on January 6 that we can and must address, including: Taking threats of extremist violence seriously at an earlier stage; blocking off the Capitol during high-profile and high-threat events, as is typically done, but was not done on January 6; manpower; and training. Permanent fencing, which is incredibly imprecise, would not address these very real security lapses. It is more likely to keep out children, joggers and tourists than a coordinated attack on the Capitol. In fact, it is another form of security theater--it would make the Capitol ``look'' safe but mask the lack of state-of-the-art security measures that could actually prevent attacks in the future. Just in the past few days, security experts have already begun putting forward innovative ways to protect the Capitol while also protecting the values of openness and transparency, which are central to our democracy. We must foster that dialogue and welcome fresh ideas, not default to an archaic security strategy that humans invented over 10,000 years ago.

Permanent fencing would send an un-American message to the Nation and the world, by transforming our democracy from one that is accessible and of the people to one that is exclusive and fearful of its own citizens. It would tell the world that the most powerful nation must rely on crude barriers for safety instead of state-of-the-art intelligence and security protocols. The Capitol has welcomed First Amendment protests and demonstrations for centuries without becoming a fortress. The openness of the Capitol and our democracy is our strength, not a security weakness that needs to be rooted out. Any further consideration of permanent fencing is desperate, distasteful and disrespectful of our history and institutions.

Furthermore, we cannot forget that the Capitol complex does not exist in a vacuum. It is immediately surrounded by residential neighborhoods and local businesses, which form the heart of the District of Columbia. Permanent fencing would cause serious damage to the fabric of these communities. These residents and businesses have been more than understanding as their neighborhoods have turned into militarized zones. They have waited patiently as officers check their identification on their walk home and taken alternative routes when they have found blocked streets. Permanent fencing would infringe on their ability, as well as the general public's ability, to enjoy the public spaces that define our nation's capital.

Already, the distance between government and the people has grown, with trust in government at historic lows. We should not entrench that distance further by placing intimidating barriers between ourselves as public servants and the people we serve, especially when such barriers are neither effective nor necessary.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor The George Washington University on the occasion of its bicentennial.

For two centuries, generations of students from around the world have come to The George Washington University (GW) to take full advantage of the unparalleled academic opportunities that accompany its unique vantage point in the heart of the nation's capital.

Indeed, the entire GW community is unique in that, regardless of what discipline one may choose to pursue there, all have chosen to attend the university because of their desire to make a difference in the world and their ability to utilize GW's vast network of partnerships, access and policy initiatives to translate that desire into action.

With its decades-long working relationships with nearly every federal agency, as well as numerous international multilateral organizations, the university's faculty have long been an indispensable source of groundbreaking research and ideas that not only create new knowledge but also transform policy that affects millions of people in their daily lives. While GW's traditional areas of strength have long been regarded as law, media and policymaking, the university is also pioneering discoveries in cybersecurity, tissue regeneration, robotics, autism, fighting extremism, HIV/AIDS, combating violence against women and girls worldwide, nanotechnology and building sustainable ecosystems, among many other areas. It should not come as a surprise that GW's doctors, researchers and public health officials have been at the forefront of COVID-19 research since the beginning and are diligently working to help address this urgent problem.

Moreover, the collective force of GW's two centuries is embodied by its distinguished alumni--now numbering more than 290,000 in 130 countries worldwide--whose ranks include some of the most consequential leaders of our time in practically every pursuit.

Furthermore, as a hub of intellect and dynamic human capital, the university continues to infuse the District of Columbia with its exciting mixture of ideas, diversity and youthful energy, which has made it an essential part of the city's civic and cultural life since its very founding.

Yet, none of this great success was either inevitable or preordained. It was only achieved by the commitment of generations of students, alumni, faculty and staff to build GW into a preeminent global research institution.

I ask the House of Representatives to join me in thanking and congratulating GW for two centuries of accomplishment and positive impact on the District, the rest of the nation and the world. I wish the university continued success into its third century and beyond.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the United States Commission on an Open Society with Security Act of 2021, which would create a commission to investigate how we can maintain our democratic traditions while actively responding to the real and substantial threats posed by foreign and domestic terrorism.

The impetus for this commission was born after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, grew in importance after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and has reached peak urgency since the insurrectionist attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. The succession of tragic events endured by our nation has led to a series of sweeping security increases that are deemed both necessary and temporary in the moment but create lasting security infrastructure that is difficult to dismantle and infringes on our open, democratic society.

We must acknowledge and accept that we have entered into an era of constant internal and external threats, requiring ever-higher levels of security for our people and public spaces. What we thought would be a temporary infringement on our open society has turned into a permanent restriction on how our citizens interact with each other and our democratic institutions. Because emergencies

typically dictate security decisions, essential discussions on the proper balance between national security, individual rights and the freedoms enjoyed in an open society have been repeatedly deferred.

My bill would ensure that this long overdue discussion takes place in a public forum with experts drawn from across the spectrum. To date, security planning has been delegated almost exclusively to security, intelligence and military experts. Although their input is indispensable, they cannot be expected to accurately consider the externalities that lie outside of their expertise. To strike a better balance that gives sufficient importance to our democratic traditions, we need to invite experts from diverse fields to the same table to work together. Therefore, the commission would be composed not only of security, intelligence and military experts, but also experts from such fields as business, architecture, technology, law, city planning, art, engineering, philosophy, history, sociology and psychology.

We have used commissions before to deeply investigate and address unprecedented challenges, such as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission), the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (also known as the Silberman Robb Commission) and the Kerner Commission following riots that swept American cities in the 1960s. The commission created by this bill would seek to avert a crisis in basic freedoms before their infringement becomes entrenched. We cannot allow security protocols to proliferate without informed civilian oversight and a thorough analysis of alternatives that might better safeguard freedom and commerce.

Furthermore, we have had decades to develop strategies and technologies for smarter security that can fulfill the responsibility of safety without depriving our citizens of access to institutions and personal liberty. Thus far, we have either relied on imprecise medieval approaches like crude barriers or on overexpansive new technologies that treat privacy like a privilege instead of a right. We can, and must, do better.

As the home of our federal government, the District of Columbia's residents have suffered a disproportionate infringement on public spaces, personal rights and freedoms in the name of security. Public spaces that serve as the heart of our local communities have become restricted zones characterized by a heavy security presence, with individuals liable to be reprimanded for walking on the wrong side of the street or marveling too long at the architecture. Barriers such as walls and fences are touted as essential security features while our citizens are left peering at their democracy from a distance.

Security is not only about reducing lives lost and dollars cost. It is also about safeguarding the institutions, freedoms and values that anchor our country, not only for ourselves but for future generations. The social compact between government and the people should not be the result of a series of hostage negotiations. We must resume reasoned and deliberative decision-making, beginning with a high-level commission composed of experts from diverse disciplines charged with developing a new course that will protect both our people and our precious democratic institutions and traditions.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia National Guard Home Rule Act, which would give the mayor of the District of Columbia control over the D.C. National Guard. I am very pleased that Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, Chair of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, which has primary jurisdiction over this bill, is an original cosponsor, as is Congressman Anthony Brown, a member of the Committee on Armed Services, which also has jurisdiction over this bill. The mayor of the District should have the same authority over the D.C. National Guard that governors of the states and territories have over their National Guards. Each governor--including the governors of the three U.S. territories with National Guards--has the authority to deploy their National Guard to protect his or her state or territory, just as local militia did historically. The events at 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.

The National Guards in the states and territories operate under dual federal and local jurisdiction. Yet the D.C. National Guard operates under the sole jurisdiction of the president. Today, by far the most likely need for the D.C. National Guard here would be for natural disasters, such as hurricanes and floods, and to restore order in the wake of civil disturbances. The mayor, who knows the city better than any federal official and who works closely with federal security officials, should be able to call out the D.C. National Guard for local natural disasters and civil disturbances. The president should be focused on national matters, including homeland security, not local D.C. matters. If it makes sense that governors have control over their National Guards, it makes equal sense for the mayor of the District, with a population the size of a small state, to have the same authority.

My bill is another important step toward completing the transfer of full self-government powers to the District that Congress began with the passage of the Home Rule Act of 1973, when it delegated most of its authority over District matters to an elected mayor and Council. The bill follows that model.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the District of Columbia Parole and Supervised Release Act. This bill would give the District of Columbia the authority to make parole and supervised release determinations for D.C. Code offenders beginning on November 1, 2022.

Currently, the U.S. Parole Commission (Commission) makes these determinations for D.C. Code offenders. This bill would give D.C. the same authority over parole and supervised release determinations for D.C. Code offenders that the Commission has today. The District has asked to have this authority for its own local offenders. D.C. would have the same authority the states possess over their own local offenders on these matters, including the authority to devise an adjudication system as it sees fit.

The National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 transferred the functions of the D.C. Parole Board to the Commission. By transferring the Commission's work on D.C. Code offenders back to the District, the federal government would save money with enactment of this bill.

I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Police Home Rule Act, which would repeal the President's authority to federalize the local District of Columbia police department, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). I am very pleased that Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, Chair of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, which has jurisdiction over this bill, is an original cosponsor. The President has no authority to federalize any other local or state police department. Under the Home Rule Act, ``whenever the President . . . determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the [MPD] for Federal purposes, he may direct the Mayor to provide him, and the Mayor shall provide, such services of the [MPD] as the President may deem necessary and appropriate.''

Under the section of the Home Rule Act that would be repealed by this bill, the President may federalize MPD for a period of not more than 30 days, unless a resolution passed by Congress extending such federalization is enacted into law. Congress may also terminate the federalization at any time by enacting a resolution into law. This bill is necessary, even with these protections, because, under the principle of self-government, the President should not have control over the District's local police department.

While it does not appear that a President has exercised this authority over MPD, this latent power is totally unnecessary, should not exist and is an affront to MPD, which has always voluntarily assisted federal authorities. Given the events at Lafayette Square this summer, it is imperative that no President be allowed to federalize MPD. Although President Trump did not federalize MPD this summer, we understand the administration looked into the possibility. MPD's first responsibility is to protect District residents and visitors, and it must always remain under the authority of the D.C. mayor to accomplish its mission. Moreover, federalization is outdated in light of current practice. MPD regularly assists the federal government as a matter of comity and to protect the District, not as an aim of the federal government, just as I am sure other local police departments do in the region. There are approximately 30 federal police departments under the President's control in the District. In the case of a federal emergency, the President can unilaterally deploy these federal officers, as well as the D.C. National Guard, and can also request the support of MPD, as the President would do in any other jurisdiction, and as the Capitol Police did during the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

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

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Legislative Autonomy Act, which would eliminate the wasteful congressional review period for legislation passed by the District of Columbia Council and align longtime congressional practice with the law. The congressional review period for D.C. bills is almost entirely ignored by Congress, providing it no benefit, but imposes substantial costs (in time and money) on the District. Congress has almost always used the appropriations process, rather than the disapproval process, to block or nullify D.C. bills and almost entirely abandoned the disapproval process as its mechanism for nullifying D.C. bills 24 years ago, having used it successfully only three times before then. Yet Congress still requires the D.C. Council to use Kafkaesque make-work procedures to comply with the abandoned congressional review period established by the D.C. Home Rule Act.

Our bill would eliminate the congressional review period for bills passed by the D.C. Council. However, Congress would lose no authority it currently exercises because, even upon enactment of this bill, Congress would retain its authority under Clause 17 of Section 8 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution to amend or overturn any D.C. laws at any time.

The congressional review period (30 days for civil bills and 60 days for criminal bills) includes those days when either house of Congress is in session, delaying D.C. bills from becoming law, often for many months. The delay forces the D.C. Council to pass most bills several times, using a cumbersome and complicated process to ensure that the operations of this large and rapidly changing city continue uninterrupted, avoiding a lapse of a bill before it becomes final. The congressional calendar means that a 30-day period usually lasts a couple of months and often much longer because of congressional recesses. For example, the congressional review period for a bill that changed the word ``handicap'' to ``disability'' lasted nine months. The Council estimates that 50 to 65 percent of the bills it passes could be eliminated if the review period did not exist. To ensure that a bill does not lapse, the Council often must pass the same bill in three forms: emergency (in effect for 90 days), temporary (in effect for 225 days) and permanent. Moreover, the Council has to carefully track the days the House and Senate are in session for each D.C. bill it passes to avoid gaps and to determine when the bills have taken effect. The Council estimates that it could save 5,000 employee hours and 160,000 sheets of paper per two-year Council period if the review process were eliminated. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy addressed the issue of saving such resources by eliminating the amount of paperwork sent to Congress when he proposed a cut in the number of reports that federal agencies are required to submit to Congress. Our bill is a perfect candidate because it eliminates a paperwork process that repeats itself without interruption.

My bill would do no more than align the Home Rule Act with congressional practice over the last 24 years. Of the more than 5,000 legislative acts transmitted to Congress since the Home Rule Act was passed in 1973, only three resolutions disapproving D.C. bills have been enacted (in 1979, 1981 and 1991) and two of those mistakenly involved federal interests--one in the Height Act and the other in the location of chanceries. Placing a congressional hold on more than 5,000 D.C. bills has not only proven unnecessary, but has imposed costs on the D.C. government, residents and businesses. District residents and businesses are also placed on hold because they have no certainty when D.C. bills, from taxes to regulations, will take effect, making it difficult to plan. It is particularly unfair to require the D.C. Council to engage in this unnecessary, labor-intensive and costly process to no effect. My bill would only eliminate the automatic hold placed on D.C. bills and the need for the D.C. Council to comply with a process initially created for the convenience of Congress, but that is now almost never used. This bill would promote efficiency and cost savings for Congress, the District and D.C. residents and businesses without reducing congressional oversight, and would carry out the policy stressed by Congress of eliminating needless paperwork and make- work redundancy.

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

Madam Speaker, today, I rise to introduce the National Commission on the Insurrectionist Attack Upon the United States Capitol Act, which would create a national commission to provide a complete account surrounding the attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, including preparedness and response. The commission would also present recommendations on how to protect our country from future attacks. My bill is modeled on the bipartisan legislation that created a national commission to investigate the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

What happened on January 6, 2021, is no less grave, no less revealing than what happened to our country in 2001. In 2001, we realized that we were woefully unprepared for a foreign terrorist attack. The bipartisan national commission created by Congress conducted an unbiased investigation and helped us improve our defenses against international threats.

Now we are faced with another threat, but this one does not come from outside, it comes from within. The people who ransacked and defaced the U.S. Capitol, the people who threatened elected officials trying to fulfill their constitutional duty were not foreigners; they were Americans. In order to tackle this new internal threat to our democracy, we must understand it, and we cannot understand it without investigating how this attack on the U.S. Capitol occurred.

The commission created by my bill would draw upon all available evidence and prior investigations to generate a full and complete accounting of the circumstances of the attack and the country's preparedness for and immediate response to the attack. This commission must be above the fray of politics to give us clear answers on what happened on January 6th. The American people deserve unbiased answers.

What happened is deeply personal for me and for many who live or grew up in the District of Columbia, where the U.S. Capitol is located. We all recognize the U.S. Capitol as a sacred symbol of democracy, but domestic terrorists came into my hometown and wreaked mayhem on our federal governing institutions. The commission would provide definitive answers to help Congress determine policies to ward off such attacks in the future.

I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump, who has violated his oath of office by calling for and causing an insurrection at the Capitol. This House would be complicit if it did nothing with the available responses. One, however, has been taken off the table. Vice President Pence has said he will not call the Cabinet together to remove the president on the grounds of disability. Besides, the use of the 25th Amendment would raise its own set of questions for most, such as whether Trump is disabled. That amendment is usually invoked when a President is hospitalized. Many would argue that Trump's actions show himself in true form.

Impeachment is not without its problems, especially with only seven days left before Trump is out of office. The proposal to delay the Senate trial to when President-elect Biden hopes to reinvigorate the urgently needed program to vaccinate Americans against the coronavirus and focus on other priorities is also problematic. There is also no precedent of an impeachment trial for a former president.

There are issues surrounding the most discussed remedies. I say this not because I do not support these remedies, but to draw attention to the need for Congress to go on record--to go on record immediately against the insurrection of January 6, 2021. The only way to do that before Biden takes office is to pass my concurrent resolution censuring the President for his attempted coup, even after votes had been counted and recounted and had been certified for Biden, and for inciting an insurrection at the Capitol. Moreover, my resolution, which, unlike impeachment and conviction, would require only a majority vote of the House and Senate, and, under the 14th Amendment, would prohibit Trump from holding office again, unless a supermajority of both chambers voted to allow him to serve again. My resolution, therefore, to censure the President has the possibility of being accepted in both Houses since it does not have the high vote threshold in the Senate as conviction after impeachment does. It also points to the President's admonition to Georgia's Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, to find 11,779 votes.

I believe my resolution can obtain bipartisan and bicameral support given the strongly expressed views of Members of the House and Senate about the incitement. My resolution is not all that the President deserves. This resolution, however, will put the Congress on record against the Trump-inspired insurrection before the next President takes office.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a treasured member of my staff, Edward Cartwright Moore, on the occasion of his retirement on January 15, 2021, after over 30 years in my office. Cartwright, my longest-serving staff member, has been a dedicated public servant for nearly his entire career. I have been honored to know him since the first day he stepped into my congressional campaign office in 1990, when I had just been elected and before I had any staff. Cartwright got to work before day one of my first term in the House, and he has been unstoppable since.

Cartwright, born in Ann Arbor, Michigan to Margaret and Edward Moore in 1954, has over the years become a go-to staffer for general casework and for his expertise on immigration and LGBTQIA issues.

Recently, for example, Cartwright was integral in assisting a District of Columbia family stranded in India during a trip to renew their H1-B Visas. While a shoutout in a Washington Post article stated ``Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) made some noise to bring her constituents back,'' it was Cartwright's work behind the scenes, spending hours working to ensure the family returned home to D.C. safely, that deserved the credit. Cartwright is meticulous, caring and humble. He also keeps other staffers on their toes with his witty, unexpected replies to everyday questions like, ``How are you?''

Cartwright graduated from Hiram College, where he studied history, in 1979. He then attended law school at Case Western University, where he studied labor law. He passed the bar in both Ohio and North Carolina, and worked on various political campaigns, picking up a range of expertise along the way.

Madam Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring Edward Cartwright Moore on his 30 years of outstanding work on behalf of D.C. residents and our country.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Prosecutor Home Rule Act of 2021 to give District of Columbia residents another important element of self-government that does not require statehood and is enjoyed by all other Americans, including those in the U.S. territories. The bill would establish a local prosecutor's office designated under local law to prosecute all local crimes in the District. Under federal law, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, a federal entity, is responsible for prosecuting most local crimes committed by adults here, which is the greater part of its caseload, in addition to prosecuting federal crimes. This bill is special because it effectuates a 2002 advisory referendum, approved by 82 percent of D.C. voters, to create a local prosecutor's office.

There is no law enforcement issue of greater importance to D.C. residents on which they have less say than the prosecution of local crimes here. A U.S. Attorney has no business prosecuting the local crimes of a jurisdiction, an anachronism that is a holdover from when the District had no home rule and that is out of place in any American self-governing jurisdiction. In fact, the territories of the United States--Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands--have the authority to prosecute all local crimes in their jurisdictions. A local D.C. prosecutor is long overdue, placing the District behind all other U.S. jurisdictions. The goal of this bill is to give the District the same jurisdiction over the criminal matters that state, local and territorial jurisdictions justifiably regard as mandatory.

Amending federal law to create a local prosecutor would be an important step toward our goal of achieving true self-government in the District. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.