Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Washington, D.C. Admission Act with 202 cosponsors, a record number of original cosponsors of the District of Columbia statehood bill. This is the most important bill I introduce each Congress, and it made historic strides in the last Congress. District residents have always been citizens of the United States and pay more federal taxes per capita than the residents of any state, but are the only federal income taxpaying Americans who do not have full and equal citizenship rights. The denial of local control on local matters and of equal representation in Congress can be remedied only by statehood. My introduction of this bill this Congress comes after this Chamber's historic and decisive passage of the Washington, D.C. Admission Act in the 116th Congress. I look forward to building on our historic momentum.

The Washington, D.C. Admission Act creates a state from the eight hometown wards of the District. This 51st state, of course, would have no jurisdiction over the federal district that now consists of the Washington that Members of Congress and visitors associate with the capital of our country. The U.S. Capitol, the White House, the U.S. Supreme Court, the principal federal monuments, federal buildings and grounds and the National Mall would remain in the federal district, which would be called the Capital. Our bill provides that the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth would be equal to the other 50 states in all respects, as is always required, and that the residents of the State of Washington, D.C. would have all the rights of citizenship, including two senators and, initially, one House member.

A substantially similar version of the Washington, D.C. Admission Act was the first bill I introduced after I was first sworn in as a Member of Congress in the 102nd Congress in 1991. Our first try for statehood received significant support in the House. In 1993, the House voted on the D.C. statehood bill, which was the first time either Chamber had done so, with nearly 60 percent of Democrats and one Republican voting for the bill. The Senate held a hearing on various approaches to representation for D.C., but the committee of jurisdiction did not proceed further. In the 113th Congress, our statehood bill got unprecedented momentum with the Senate's first-ever hearing on D.C. statehood. That was the first congressional hearing on D.C. statehood in more than 20 years, since the House held a hearing on statehood in 1993. In the 113th Congress, we obtained a record number of cosponsors in the House and Senate, including then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, as well as the other top three Democratic leaders in the Senate. In addition, then-President Barack Obama endorsed D.C. statehood in a public forum before the statehood hearing was held. In the 115th Congress, not only was there a record number of original cosponsors of the bill, with 116 in the House and 18 in the Senate, but also a record number of cosponsors in the House (181) and Senate (30).

The 116th Congress, however, represented a turning point in the march to D.C. statehood. For the first time in American history, a Chamber of Congress voted to make Washington, Douglass Commonwealth the 51st state. We introduced the bill with a record number of original cosponsors in the House (155) and Senate (28), and had, by far, a record number of cosponsors in the House (227), which was more than enough to pass the bill with cosponsors alone, and in the Senate (42). More than 100 national organizations endorsed the bill.

The United States is the only democratic country that denies the residents of the nation's capital both voting rights in the national legislature and local autonomy. We have both the moral obligation and legal authority to end this injustice.

Statehood is the only solution for full and equal citizenship rights for residents of the District. To be content with less than statehood is to concede the equality of citizenship that is the birthright of our residents as citizens of the United States. That is a concession no American citizen has ever made, and one that D.C. residents will not tolerate in their 220th year of fighting for equal treatment in their country. This bill reaffirms our determination to obtain each and every right enjoyed by citizens of the United States, by becoming the 51st state in the Union.

Since the nation's founding, District residents have always carried all of the obligations of citizenship, including serving in all of the nation's wars and payment of federal taxes, all without equal voting representation on the floor in either House of Congress or freedom from congressional interference in purely local matters.

D.C. statehood has both the facts and the Constitution on its side. The Constitution does not establish any prerequisites for new states, but Congress has generally considered three factors in admission decisions: resources and population, support for statehood and commitment to democracy.

D.C. pays more federal taxes per capita than any state and pays more federal taxes than 22 states. D.C.'s population of 712,000 is larger than those of two states, and the new state would be one of seven states with a population under one million. D.C.'s budget is larger than those of 12 states, and D.C.'s bond rating is higher than those of 35 states. D.C. has a higher per capita personal income and gross domestic product than any state. Eighty-six percent of D.C. residents voted for statehood in 2016. In fact, D.C. residents have been fighting for voting rights in Congress and local autonomy for 219 years.

The Constitution's Admissions Clause gives Congress the authority to admit new states, and all 37 new states have been admitted by an act of Congress. The Constitution's District Clause sets a maximum size of the federal district (100 square miles). It does not set a minimum size. Congress previously has changed the size of the federal district, including reducing it by 30 percent in 1846.

I seek statehood for the Americans I am honored to represent. At the same time, D.C. statehood is deeply personal for me. My great- grandfather Richard Holmes, who escaped as a slave from a Virginia plantation, made it as far as D.C., a walk to freedom but not to equal citizenship. For three generations my family has been denied the rights other Americans take for granted. There are many other D.C. residents like me.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Federal Officials Residency Requirement Equality Act, which would amend federal law to require certain federal officials who serve the District of Columbia to actually live within its boundaries. In nearly every other jurisdiction in the United States, federal district court judges, federal circuit court judges, U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals 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 these same requirements. Even in the territories, such officials are required to live in those districts, 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 district. 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 judges, U.S. Marshals and U.S. Attorney live among the residents they have been appointed to represent, in keeping with the federal law that applies elsewhere in the United States.

The requirement that these federal officials ought to 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, on July 12, 2019, I was unable to attend votes because I was attending to official business. Had I been present, I would have voted: NAY on Roll Call No. 462; YEA on Roll Call No. 463; YEA on Roll Call No. 464; YEA on Roll Call No. 465; YEA on Roll Call No. 466; YEA on Roll Call No. 467; YEA on Roll Call No. 468; YEA on Roll Call No. 469; YEA on Roll Call No. 470; and YEA on Roll Call No. 471.

Madam Speaker, on July 11, 2019, I was unable to attend votes because I was out of town on official business. Had I been present, I would have voted: YEA on Roll Call No. 438; YEA on Roll Call No. 439; YEA on Roll Call No. 440; YEA on Roll Call No. 441; YEA on Roll Call No. 442; YEA on Roll Call No. 443; YEA on Roll Call No. 444; YEA on Roll Call No. 445; YEA on Roll Call No. 446; YEA on Roll Call No. 447; YEA on Roll Call No. 448; YEA on Roll Call No. 449; YEA on Roll Call No. 450; YEA on Roll Call No. 451; YEA on Roll Call No. 452; YEA on Roll Call No. 453; YEA on Roll Call No. 454; YEA on Roll Call No. 455; YEA on Roll Call No. 456; YEA on Roll Call No. 457; and YEA on Roll Call No. 458.

Madam Speaker, due to an error, I voted ``nay'' on Roll Call 460 (Amash of Michigan Part B Amendment No. 50 to H.R. 2500). I intended to vote ``yea''.

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Reducing the Effects of the Cyberattack on OPM Victims Emergency Response Act of 2019 (the RECOVER Act), which would require the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to make permanent the free identity protection coverage that Congress required OPM to provide for 10 years to individuals whose Social Security Numbers were potentially compromised during the OPM data breaches. In 2015, OPM reported that the personally identifiable information of as many as 25.7 million current, former and prospective federal employees and contractors was stolen in two data breaches. I appreciate that Representative C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger is co-leading on this bill.

After OPM announced that it would offer identity protection coverage of limited duration and value, Senator Ben Cardin and I introduced the RECOVER Act in July 2015, which would have provided affected individuals lifetime protection and at least $5 million in identity theft insurance. Congress subsequently included a version of our bill in an enacted appropriations bill, but limited the duration of the protection. Under current law, OPM is only required to provide identity protection coverage through fiscal year 2026. Under the bill we are introducing today, OPM would be required to provide coverage for the remainder of the lives of affected individuals.

The current coverage is inadequate, particularly considering that there is no limit to when the thieves (or those they have shared the stolen data with) may exploit the data. Therefore, there should be no limit on the duration of the coverage provided to affected individuals. This bill would give current, former and prospective federal employees and contractors who were affected both some peace of mind and protection. OPM failed to protect these people. It follows that the government must do the right thing to make up for its mistake.

I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce a bill The Civil War Defenses of Washington National Historical Park Act to recognize and preserve the Civil War Defenses of Washington located in the District of Columbia, Virginia and Maryland. The Defenses of Washington, including forts, unarmed batteries and rifle trenches, created a ring of protection for the nation's capital during the Civil War. This bill would redesignate the 22 Civil War Defenses of Washington currently under National Park Service jurisdiction as a

national historical park, and allow other sites associated with the Defenses of Washington that are owned by the District or a unit of state governments to be affiliated with the national historical park through cooperative agreements. This bill would also require the Secretary of the Interior to facilitate the storied history of the Civil War for both the North and the South, including the history of the Defenses of Washington and the Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864, being assembled; arrayed and conveyed for the benefit of the public for the knowledge, education and inspiration of this and future generations. Last year, I was able to have a hearing on this bill. Although the National Park Service testified against this bill, I feel strongly that the Defenses of Washington need additional recognition and should be redesignated as a national historical park.

The Defenses of Washington were constructed at the beginning of the war, in 1861, as a ring of protection for the nation's capital and for President Abraham Lincoln. By the end of the war, these defenses included 68 forts, 93 unarmed batteries, 807 mounted cannons, 13 miles of rifle trenches and 32 miles of military roads. The major test of the Defenses of Washington came with the Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864, when Confederate Lieutenant General Jubal Early, directed by General Robert E. Lee, sought to attack the nation's capital from the north, causing Union forces threatening to attack Richmond, the capital of the Confederacy, to be withdrawn. General Early was delayed by Union Major General Lew Wallace at the Battle of Monocacy on July 9, 1864, and was stopped at the northern edge of Washington at the Battle of Fort Stevens on July 11-12, 1864. The Shenandoah Valley Campaign ended when Union Lieutenant General Philip Sheridan defeated General Early at the Battle of Cedar Creek, Virginia, on October 19, 1864.

Nearly all the individual forts in the Defenses of Washington--on both sides of the Potomac and Anacostia rivers--were involved in stopping General Early's attack, and the Battle of Fort Stevens was the second and last attempt by the Confederate Army to attack Washington.

Taken together, these battles were pivotal to the outcome of the war and the freedom and democracy that the war represented for this country. It is therefore fitting that we recognize these sites by redesignating them as a national historical park.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Francis ``Fran'' Johnson for her commitment to community service in the District of Columbia on the occasion of her 70th birthday on July 23, 2019.

Johnson is a third-generation District native. She began her service to the District as a candy-striper at Howard University Hospital, formerly known as Freedman's Hospital, in 1964. Over the years, she has advocated for critical issues such as equality in education and housing and improved financial literacy, among others.

As a neighborhood advocate, she has increased the number of signs in the community to help children with hearing impairments and called for more lighting in her neighborhood to help reduce crime. She fights for a D.C. with clean streets, safe neighborhoods and flourishing communities.

Building on her experience as a Ward 4 resident, she cofounded a non- profit named Shammah, Inc, which provides low-income families with food, shelter and the opportunity to learn life skills.

Over the years, she has been recognized for her commitment to service. In 2009, she was named ``Superwoman'' by NBC News 4, and in 2017, she was crowned Ms. Senior District of Columbia. As Ms. Senior District of Columbia, she attended over 200 community events, amplifying the voice of older D.C. residents and advocating for an age- friendly D.C. In her role as Ms. Senior District of Columbia, she testified at D.C. Council hearings and partnered with several D.C. Office on Aging and Community Living programs.

Johnson attended St. Cecilia's Academy and D.C.'s first land-grant college, the Washington Technical Institute. She graduated with academic honors and a degree in Business Administration/Secretarial Science.

She began her professional career in 1970, as the first African- American legal secretary for the International Business Machines Corporation's (IBM) intellectual property division. After 30 years at IBM, she retired and joined the Business Executives for National Service as the office receptionist and Assistant to the CFO.

While she has embraced many roles during her lifetime--wife, daughter, mother, grandmother, professional and community advocate-- Johnson still makes time for sports, music, traveling and many other hobbies.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Francis ``Fran'' Johnson on the occasion of her 70th birthday and for her lasting contributions to the District of Columbia.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church for its many contributions to the District of Columbia. Metropolitan, also known as the National Cathedral of African Methodism, was founded in 1838 and has been a leading spiritual and community resource ever since.

On July 2, 2019, Metropolitan held a well-attended and informative community meeting on D.C. statehood. This meeting at the church was an act of leadership in keeping with its long tradition of deep involvement not only with its members but also with the District.

Metropolitan began as two separate churches, Israel Bethel AME and Union Bethel AME. In 1838, these two churches came together. The combined churches received an official sanction from the Baltimore Conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church on July 6, 1838.

The church retained the name Union Bethel until 1870 when the Baltimore Conference designated a new church name and the construction of a new ``Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church.'' Along with the new designation, the Baltimore Conference attached two key conditions--the first was that the church needed to be located near the Capitol and White House, and the second was that each Annual Conference of AME churches was called upon to donate money for the construction of the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church. To represent the gratitude of the congregation, the church was built with stained glass windows for each contributing Annual Conference.

The church has done pathbreaking work over the years, from hiding enslaved Africans in the 19th century, to educating community members about AIDS and voting rights. Metropolitan is not only a leading place of worship but also a community resource, promoting intellectual and political achievement through the Bethel Literary and Historical Society since 1850. Metropolitan has opened its doors to many prominent visitors such as Barack Obama, Fredrick Douglass and Eleanor Roosevelt.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church for its 180-year history of contributions to its members and to the District of Columbia for its leadership and for encouraging discussion of the Washington, D.C. Admission Act, which would make D.C. the 51st state.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment Home Rule Act. This bill would give the District of Columbia the authority to appoint all members of the D.C. Board of Zoning Adjustment (Board), except when the Board is performing functions regarding an application by a foreign mission with respect to a chancery. The Board issues special exceptions, or variances, to the regulations issued by the D.C. Zoning Commission (Commission). This bill does not alter the authority of the Board.

Like every other jurisdiction in the United States, the District should be free to set its own local land-use policies. As the District continues to contend with rapid population growth and economic development, it is more important than ever that the members of the Board are accountable to District residents and local elected officials.

Under current law, in general, the Board consists of a representative each from the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and the Commission, each of whom may be a federal official, and three mayoral appointees, subject to D.C. Council approval. The Board has no authority over federal property.

Under current law, when the Board is performing functions regarding an application by a foreign mission with respect to the location, expansion or replacement of a chancery, the Board consists of the Executive Director of NCPC; the Director of the National Park Service, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Interior or the Administrator of General Services, as designated by the President; and the three mayoral appointees. This bill does not change this composition.

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

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

This amendment prohibits the General Services Administration, the Federal Government's real estate arm, from using its funds to relocate the Department of Agriculture's National Institute of Food and Agriculture and the Economic Research Service outside of the national capital region. Earlier today, the House prohibited USDA from using its funds to relocate these agencies outside of the national capital region.

On June 13, 2019, USDA announced it will relocate 547 out of its 644 employees of these agencies from the national capital region to the Kansas City region.

Many Members of Congress who are opposing this relocation are doing so not only to protect the employees of these agencies from the agonizing decision of moving halfway across the country or losing their jobs, but we are also fighting to protect scientific research and integrity, uphold Federal law, and ensure compliance with our real estate procurement process.

The USDA lacks the legal or budget authority to carry out this relocation. The USDA and GSA have violated the real estate procurement process. Further, this move is not in the best interests of the taxpayers.

Don't just take my word for it. The USDA Office of Inspector General initiated a review of the relocation for the same reasons in November 2018, and that review is ongoing.

This relocation is about ideology and politics, nothing more. The decision to relocate was made before any cost-benefit analysis was done of the consequences.

The relocation is about the Trump administration's long-documented antipathy to nonpartisan, career Federal employees and the objective research they produce and fund.

The employees of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture and the Economic Research Service are being punished for doing their jobs, the jobs Congress mandated. But the country, especially the agricultural community, is also being punished.

As the Union of Concerned Scientists noted when the location was selected: ``The damage was already done before Secretary Perdue made his decision. It was clear from the start that the Trump administration was systematically hollowing out USDA's ability to produce objective science. The White House proposed budget cuts to eliminate research that's inconvenient to its interests, and at the same time, they've created this unnecessary relocation crisis, which is driving off scientists who conduct that very research,'' which is necessary.

``This is a blatant attack on science and will especially hurt farmers, ranchers, and eaters at a particularly vulnerable time.''

Mr. Chair, we will fight this relocation using every tool at our disposal. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, why should I think this wouldn't happen this year? Every single year, there is a move to move agencies out of the Nation's Capital. Why in the world do you think that the Framers created a Nation's Capital in the first place?

My good friend offers the notion that he wants to be closer to the people where agriculture takes place. Well, why don't we move the Agriculture Subcommittee? Why don't we move virtually everything that happens here that we deal with nationwide? Because there is a Nation's Capital.

This is a political move. The other side has shown in the past--and not once, I must say--that science is not important, and that is putting it mildly.

They object to the objective science that this agency puts out. Perhaps some of us do as well, but the Federal Government needs an objective, scientific provision, and that is what this is about.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 396; YEA on Roll Call No. 397; and YEA on Roll Call No. 398.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the work of William Henry Simons, III, and the William Henry Simons, III, Scholarship Fund.

On Saturday, June 22, the Washington Teachers' Union (WTU), which represents educators in the District of Columbia's public schools, will re-name its scholarship fund the William Henry Simons, III, Scholarship Fund in honor of one of D.C.'s most important leaders, William Henry Simons, III, who passed away in 2016. This scholarship has been making contributions to the District of Columbia since 1974. The Scholarship Fund is dedicated to encouraging D.C.'s best and brightest students to pursue careers in education and support the next generation of D.C. teachers. I am particularly pleased and honored to offer this resolution not only because of Simons' much deserved merit as a teacher and a union leader but also because he was my history teacher when I attended Banneker High School here in the District.

In 1972, WTU, under the leadership of Simons, called a strike of D.C. Public School teachers to protest pay and working conditions. The strike violated D.C. law prohibiting strikes by public employees, and a fine of $50,000 was imposed on the union. Simons asked the court to use the money to benefit D.C. public school students. The request went to the D.C. Superior Court, which in 1974, granted Simons his request. That was the beginning of the WTU Scholarship Fund Program. Since 1974, the Fund has awarded scholarships totaling more than $1,000,000 to over 100 D.C. public school students.

Simons was born in D.C. in 1924 and attended segregated D.C. public schools. In 1943, he interrupted his studies at Miner Teachers College to serve in World War II. On D-Day, June 6, 1944, as a sergeant major in the 262nd Quartermasters Battalion, Simons was one of the heroes who stormed Normandy and helped bring about the end of Nazi oppression. He was awarded the Bronze Star and the Croix de Guerre for his courage. After the war, Simons completed his education and began an 18-year career as a social studies teacher at Banneker Junior High in D.C.

Simons was elected president of WTU in 1964 and served for a total of 25 years. During his tenure as president, Simons was a champion of D.C. home rule and fought against plans that would have de facto re- segregated D.C. schools. He was also a pioneer in fighting for educational equity and the right of every D.C. public school student to receive the educational opportunities they needed to succeed, regardless of their race, ethnicity, immigration status or economic circumstances.

He was an observer at the first democratic elections in South Africa, a college lecturer, writer and consultant, and in 1995, he was appointed treasurer of the prestigious Association for the Study of African American Life and History, which was founded by the legendary historian Carter G. Woodson.

Madam Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in commending and celebrating the life and legacy of William Henry Simons, III, and in congratulating the Washington Teachers' Union for re-naming its scholarship fund in his honor.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating LINK Strategic Partners on becoming the 2019 District of Columbia Small Business of the Year. This distinction is awarded as part of our 22nd annual District of Columbia Small Business Fair, at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center.

This year, we are proud to honor LINK Strategic Partners, a national strategic communications and stakeholder engagement firm headquartered in Washington, D.C. LINK provides strategic communications and ``hyperlocal'' community engagement. With a radically different approach to the communications and public relations industry, LINK puts people, relationships and communities first.

LINK began in 2012 with two full-time employees sharing a small office in the Greater Washington Urban League building in the heart of Washington, D.C. In the seven years since then, the firm has grown tenfold in staff, expanded across the nation and opened its first international location. With team members in St. Louis, New York, Phoenix, Maine and Paris, LINK has grown to 300+ clients, $15 million in awarded contract value and pro bono work of over $1 million.

LINK specializes in helping clients build mutually beneficial relationships with local communities. Over the past seven years, LINK has evolved its social impact lens, focusing on the power of human connection and supporting clients in connecting with their constituents in ways that will improve the communities they serve. LINK has also demonstrated the value of investing in team members, offering competitive salaries, benefits and professional development opportunities.

Our fair highlights the importance of small businesses to the District's economy. It provides critical information, counseling and resources to aspiring and current D.C. small business owners. Small businesses are a crucial lifeline in our local economy, and the District thrives because of the expanding success of small businesses throughout the District. We thank the Washington Convention Center for hosting us again this year, the workshop experts who are providing valuable information and assistance to aspiring and current small business owners, and, of course, all the participants.

Madam Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating LINK Strategic Partners, as well as in celebrating small businesses across the District. In the District and in districts around the country, small businesses continue to make indispensable contributions to our economies and communities.

Madam Speaker, today, I introduced the Commission of Fine Arts District of Columbia Home Rule Act. This bill would prohibit the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) from exercising authority over non- federal property in the District of Columbia.

Under presidential executive orders (EOs) and federal law, the CFA has review authority for D.C.-owned parks and buildings, as well as for certain private land in D.C. Under the relevant EOs, CFA has review authority for the design of D.C.-owned parks and buildings. Under the Shipstead-Luce Act, CFA has review authority for the design of private buildings in the District ``adjacent to public buildings and grounds of major importance,'' such as Rock Creek Park and the Potomac riverfront. Under the Old Georgetown Act, the CFA has review authority for the design of private buildings in the part of Georgetown referred to as ``Old Georgetown'' in the act. The members of the CFA are appointed by the President.

The federal government, including the CFA, has no business in local land-use policies and decisions unrelated to the federal presence. Not only is the federal government's authority over D.C. buildings and private property anti-democratic, it also delays and increases the cost of public and private development in the District.

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