Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, D.C. is a world-class city, yet this bill seeks to codify and encourage President Trump's efforts to control and transform D.C., as well as to demonize D.C. and its 700,000 residents, the majority of whom are Black and Brown. President Trump already has called for the repeal of D.C. home rule, federalized the D.C. police department, deployed troops and masked Federal agents on D.C.'s streets, terrorized immigrants in D.C., demolished the East Wing of the White House, removed the nonprofit managing the public golf courses in D.C., and announced the closure of the Kennedy Center. This bill will only embolden him. This bill would establish in the executive branch the D.C. Safe and Beautiful Commission. The commission's responsibilities include increasing civil immigration enforcement in D.C., deploying more Federal law enforcement officers in D.C., and increasing the number of people carrying guns in D.C. The commission's top priority is to increase civil immigration enforcement in D.C. Specifically, the commission is required to ensure the ``maximum enforcement of Federal immigration law within the District of Columbia, including policies to encourage the redirection of available Federal, State, or local law enforcement resources to apprehend and deport illegal aliens,'' and to monitor D.C.'s ``compliance with the enforcement of Federal immigration law.'' The commission is also required to facilitate the ``deployment of a more robust Federal law enforcement presence'' in D.C. and to ``increase the speed and lower the costs of processing concealed carry'' permits in D.C. However, D.C. does not want masked Federal agents terrorizing communities, separating families, and destroying the community trust needed for effective local policing or more guns on the streets. This bill would also require the Secretary of the Interior to ``develop a program to beautify'' D.C., even though D.C. is already one of the most beautiful cities in the world. This Congress, Republicans have filed over 100 bills, amendments, and riders to repeal, amend, or block D.C. from carrying out local laws and policies. The House has already passed 10 of those bills. D.C. residents have all the obligations of American citizenship, including paying Federal taxes, serving on juries, and registering with the Selective Service, yet Congress denies them full local self- government and voting representation in Congress. The only solution to this undemocratic treatment is to grant D.C. statehood. Congress has the authority to admit D.C. as a State. The D.C. statehood bill, H.R. 51, would reduce the size of the Federal district from 68 square miles to 2 square miles, consisting of the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, and The National Mall. The residential and commercial areas of D.C. would be a new State. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 5103. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter opposing this bill from Brady United Against Gun Violence. March 25, 2026. Dear Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: Founded in 1974, Brady works across Congress, courts, and communities, uniting gun owners and non-gun owners alike, to take action, not sides, and end America's gun violence epidemic. Our organization today carries the name of Jim and Sarah Brady. As you know, Jim was shot and severely injured in the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan. As victims of gun violence and life-long gun owners, Jim and Sarah dedicated the rest of their lives to passing federal legislation requiring background checks for gun sales. Brady continues to uphold Jim and Sarah's legacy by uniting Americans from coast to coast, red and blue, young and old, liberal and conservative, to combat the epidemic of gun violence. This week, the House will consider the Make the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Act of 2026 (H.R. 5 103), which establishes in the federal executive branch the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Commission, consisting entirely of federal officials. This bill is yet another example of federal overreach into the affairs of the District's residents, imposing unnecessary and unwanted criminal and civil reforms. Most egregiously, the bill would direct the commission to seek to ``increase the speed and lower the cost of processing concealed carry license requests in the District of Columbia.'' Brady stands in strong opposition to H.R. 5103 and urges Members to oppose this dangerous overreach of federal authority over the District of Columbia and its residents. Every American should have a say in how they can best prevent gun violence and violent crime in their own communities; that is at the very core of the system of federalism our founding fathers fought a revolution to create. Yet, when it comes to efforts to pass public safety laws, citizens of our nation's capital are often at the mercy of federal legislators with little interest in their needs, and attempts by the District's leaders to keep their communities safe are continuously tossed aside by lawmakers with no stake in those communities. The District's residents are among the only Americans who bear all the responsibilities of citizenship without fully realizing their benefits. The District has a population larger than two states that enjoy full representation in Congress. D.C. residents pay higher taxes than residents in all but 2 states and have the highest per capita federal tax rate in the nation. Yet, D.C. Home Rule is limited--Congress has the power to review and block local legislation, impose their own legislative prerogatives, control the budget, and appoint judges. The District of Columbia, guided by interest in preserving public safety for its residents and visitors, has implemented a concealed firearm carry licensing process that ensures prospective licensees meet the necessary legal requirements for firearm and concealed carry possession, including the completion of an MPD-approved range training, within the District. Under H.R 5103, the federal government would meddle with the District's laws regarding who can carry concealed handguns in public, undermining its ability to enforce laws in service of public safety. District residents deserve autonomy over their home and over how they choose to combat violent crime. The federal government should not abuse its oversight of the District of Columbia to interfere with home rule policies and practices. As such, Brady calls on Members to oppose H.R. 5103 and any other bill that restricts the autonomy of the District of Columbia or overrides the District's criminal justice laws. Best regards, Mark A. Collins, Director, Federal Policy.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill. I include in the Record letters opposing this bill from the District of Columbia Mayor and every member of the D.C. Council. September 10, 2025. Hon. James Comer, Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC. Hon. Robert Garcia, Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Garcia: As Mayor and Chief Executive Officer of the District of Columbia, I am proud of the work we have accomplished to invest in our people, strengthen our neighborhoods, and drive down crime. Building on this progress, my Administration established the Safe and Beautiful Emergency Operations Center to coordinate public safety and beautification efforts as the presidential emergency declaration ends. This structure ensures that DC will remain proactive--bringing together local and federal partners to sustain momentum on reducing crime and improving quality of life for every resident. We have worked collaboratively with this Committee on shared priorities, including public safety, the federal Return to Work, implementing a DC budget Fiscal Year 2025 fix (which is still pending in the House) and revitalizing the RFK campus; but I write now to ask you to reject 13 of the DC bills before you today that encroach on DC's Home Rule: Bills like H.R. 5183, the District of Columbia Home Rule Improvement Act, make the District less efficient, competitive, and responsive to the needs of a highly complex unique local government that serves local, county and state functions. Bogging down legislative and executive action only adds costs and uncertainty, making it more difficult to handle the economic headwinds and growth opportunities ahead. Bills like H.R. 5214, the District of Columbia Cash Bail Reform Act, make DC less safe. Replacing our very effective pre-trial detention regime, which focuses on charged violent offenses and repeat violent offenders, not just on cash bail. I credit recent changes to our laws related to pre-trial detention for helping to drive down violent crime in the last two years. And the bills to abolish the Judicial Nominations Commission and to convert the elected DC Attorney General to a Presidentially appointed legal officer for the District are both less democratic and untenable for District operations. The Judicial Nomination Commission, with seven members appointed by the Mayor, DC Council, President, US District Court for DC, and the DC Bar, works. As recently as last month, President Trump nominated three federal judicial nominees who were selected from the Commission's candidate pool--a process that demonstrates the value of maintaining local input. DC residents also voted to elect an Attorney General who represents the public interest. Changes to these charter agencies would significantly undercut the already thin ties to autonomy that limited home rule provides. Finally, I urge you not to up end our three-part education funding SOAR Act. I have long supported the program to expand opportunity for DC students. However, my support has always been contingent on parity among all three education sectors-- public, private, and charter--and this approach is working. We will not support changes that tip the scales away from this core principle of fairness for DC families. As the fastest improving urban school system, DC has become a model for urban education. We outpace the national average on all tested subject areas. We boast free, full-day Pre-K access serving more than 13,200 young learners--an investment which supports our children and our workforce. DC ranked top of the nation in parental satisfaction regarding school choice. Mayoral control, council oversight, and deep, targeted investments in our students, teachers, and buildings made these remarkable achievements possible. I look forward to continuing a productive partnership with the Committee--one that respects the will of DC residents and honors the principles of home rule. Together, we can build on our successes while protecting the autonomy that, as history reflects, has made our city stronger. Sincerely, Muriel Bowser, Mayor.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Ensuring Full Participation in the Census Act of 2026, which would prohibit the U.S. Census Bureau (Bureau) from including questions on the decennial census about citizenship, nationality or immigration status. Prior to the 2020 census, the Department of Justice wrote to the Bureau requesting that it ``reinstate on the 2020 census questionnaire a question regarding citizenship.'' From 1970 to 2000, this question was sent to approximately 16 percent of the population in the decennial census through the so-called ``longform.'' However, the longform was dropped from the census and replaced with the current American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is sent to approximately three million people annually, which allows the Bureau to get the necessary information on citizenship. Asking questions about citizenship status to every person in the decennial census has not been done in almost 70 years because it would discourage people, largely minorities, who are already undercounted in the census, from participating in the census. The ACS was created to make the decennial census simpler for people to complete, which facilitates higher participation rates and preserves privacy. Fortunately, after a protracted legal and political process, the citizenship question was not included on the 2020 census. However, this bill is necessary to ensure it cannot be asked on a future decennial census. The representative sample provided by the ACS is more than sufficient to determine citizenship statistics in the U.S. All individuals must be counted in the decennial census to ensure an accurate allocation of federal funds and representation in Congress. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Jury Duty Exemption for Breastfeeding Act of 2026, which would allow breastfeeding individuals summoned for jury service in the federal courts or the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to be excused from service upon the individual's request. The benefits of breastfeeding are well- documented, and individuals should not be deterred from breastfeeding by jury service. This bill would apply to the D.C. Superior Court because Congress is the only legislative body that can mandate this exemption for the D.C. Superior Court. The D.C. Home Rule Act prohibits the D.C. Council from enacting any law relating to Title 11 of the D.C. Code, which governs jury service in the D.C. Superior Court. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Juror Pay Parity Act, which would require D.C.'s local trial court, the Superior Court, to pay jurors the same amount federal courts pay jurors. Currently, the Superior Court pays jurors the same amount federal courts pay jurors, but the Superior Court has sometimes paid less. Under the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Congress assumed responsibility for funding the local D.C. courts. The local D.C. courts, however, have always been under the direct control of Congress, even when they were funded by D.C. The D.C. Home Rule Act prohibits the D.C. Council from enacting any law with respect to any provision of Title 11 of the D.C. Code (relating to the organization and jurisdiction of the local D.C. courts). Under Title II, the Board of Judges of the Superior Court sets juror pay. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the McIntire-Stennis Act District of Columbia Equality Act, which would make the District of Columbia eligible for funding under the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Act (Act) in the same manner as states. The Act provides funding to states and certain territories for forestry research programs. The funding assists states and territories in carrying out forestry research programs at state forestry schools and colleges and developing a trained pool of forest scientists capable of conducting forestry research. D.C. residents pay the same federal taxes as residents of states and therefore D.C. is almost always treated as a state under federal programs. The Act defines ``State'' to include Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Guam, whose residents do not pay full federal taxes. D.C.'s exclusion from the Act makes it ineligible for funding that would support research at D.C.'s public university, the University of the District of Columbia (UDC). The College of Agriculture, Urban Sustainability and Environmental Sciences at UDC, the Nation's only urban land-grant university, offers programs that complement D.C.'s ongoing forestry efforts and serve individuals in D.C. and beyond. Rectifying D.C.'s exclusion from the Act would ensure equal treatment for D.C. and provide UDC a fair share of resources. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commend David Nelson for his service at Amtrak. After 35 years of service at Amtrak, David will be retiring on March 2, 2026. David started his career as a computer systems manager for former House Majority Whip Tony Coelho. During that time, Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). After working in Congress, David began working at Amtrak. During his time at Amtrak, he has taught numerous employees and executives throughout the organization about the ADA. He was a catalyst for Amtrak's march toward accessibility when he started in 1990, and he has not stopped since. A tireless advocate for people with disabilities in transportation, David was an active member of the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) and received its Frederick C. Schrieber Distinguished Service Award in 2004, as well as the RIT 2015 Distinguished Alumni Award for the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID). He represented NAD on numerous business and association accessibility councils, including at Amtrak, Northwest Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Greyhound Lines, Open Doors Organization and NTID Advisory Group. In his spare time, David served as president of the District of Columbia Association of the Deaf and the Florida School for the Deaf Alumni Association. While he is a proud alumnus of the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind, elementary and middle school were difficult years for David. He was mainstreamed in the local schools, where students were not permitted to use American Sign Language and were physically reprimanded for doing so. David's grandmother supported his transfer to the Florida School for the Deaf for high school, which set him on a path toward college and a career. David holds a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Systems from the Rochester Institute of Technology as well as an Associate's Degree in Data Processing from NTID. He has resided in the District of Columbia for approximately 40 years. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in thanking David Nelson for his contributions to Amtrak and our Nation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act District of Columbia Equality Act. This bill would make the District of Columbia eligible for federal funding under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act in the same manner as states. D.C. residents pay the same federal taxes as residents of the states and, therefore, D.C. should be treated as a state under federal programs. D.C. has roughly 7,800 acres of parkland, covering nearly a quarter of the city. The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act provides funding to states for five distinct purposes: program administration, wildlife restoration, basic hunter education and safety, enhanced hunter education and safety grants and multistate conservation grants. In general, D.C. is not eligible for funding under this Act. The Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act provides funding for sport fish restoration, aquatic education, wetlands restoration and boat-related activities. Under this Act, each state receives a minimum of one percent of the total amount apportioned, while D.C. is capped at one-third of one percent. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Bayard Rustin Stamp Act. This bill would direct the United States Postmaster General to issue a forever stamp to commemorate the life and work of Bayard Rustin. Representative Ritchie Torres is co-leading this bill. Born in 1912, Rustin became one of the most important leaders in the 20th century civil rights movement. At a young age, Rustin learned the values of nonviolence and peacekeeping from his grandparents' Quaker faith, and he would continue to build these values into his life as a civil rights movement leader. Rustin attended City College of New York, where he joined a progressive club that aimed to remedy racial issues during turbulent times. His time with the club was short-lived, but it inspired him to join the Fellowship of Reconciliation, an organization that became a champion for labor rights, equity and world peace. Rustin's time with the Fellowship of Reconciliation led him to become a leader in the 1947 ``Journey to Reconciliation,'' where white and Black people across the South rode buses together to challenge segregation laws, a precursor to the Freedom Rides. Rustin was an advisor in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s inner circle as King advocated pacifism and nonviolence for achieving equal treatment for African Americans. Rustin applied his brilliant strategic mind to execute aggressive, peaceful action in the civil rights movement and throughout his life as an activist. Rustin's most important role was as the chief organizer of the historic March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, the largest demonstration ever organized at the time, in which a quarter of a million people turned out to demand civil rights for African Americans. In the years after the civil rights movement, Rustin, a gay man, inspired others to advocate for and achieve rights for LGBTQ+ people. He remained a strategist and public speaker for workers' rights movements, including co-founding the A. Philip Randolph Institute, an organization for Black trade union members. Rustin remained committed to promoting social good, and advocating for the disenfranchised, until his death. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

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

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, while they disagreed on whether the D.C. Council should have enacted the D.C. law that is the subject of this disapproval resolution in the first place, they both strongly oppose this disapproval resolution. Their letter states that this disapproval resolution, if enacted, not only would violate D.C.'s right to self- government but ``would have major and immediate impacts on tax administration in the District.'' Mr. Speaker, I finally include in the Record a letter to Congress from the D.C. business community. February 3, 2026. Hon. Mike Johnson, Speaker, House of Representatives. Hon. John Thune, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Minority Leader, House of Representatives. Hon. Charles Schumer, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate. Dear Speaker Johnson, Leader Thune, Leader Jeffries, and Leader Schumer: We write to you, in unison, as representatives of the District of Columbia's business organizations, urging you to oppose the Joint Resolution of Disapproval H.J. Res. 142 and Joint Resolution of Disapproval S.J. Res. 102 that would reverse the District's decision to decouple the local tax code from some provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's federal tax code changes. A reversal of decoupling would create chaos in the middle of tax filing season. The District has already begun accepting and processing returns. It would take the DC government and private vendors months to adjust local tax administration. Filing deadlines would have to be pushed back to the Fall of 2026. Delaying local income tax collection would create a local cash shortfall of up to $400 million in FY26, according to the DC Chief Financial Officer. Local tax code decoupling from the federal tax code is not unique. Many states have also voted to decouple from provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, as they have many times in the past in response to federal tax changes. Changes at this stage in the process would create fiscal instability and uncertainty, impeding the District's ability to attract investment. There are many ways that Congress has and can continue to use its power to make the District a vibrant city where Americans want to live, visit, and do business, and we welcome your support for the District of Columbia. Sincerely, The Washington, DC Business and Civic Community; Anthony Williams, CEO & Executive Director, Federal City Council; Jack McDougle, President & CEO, Greater Washington Board of Trade; Chinyere Hubbard, President & CEO, DC Chamber of Commerce; Lisa Mallory, President & CEO, Apartment & Office Building Association of Metropolitan Washington; Scott Reiter, CEO, DC Association of REALTORS; Jacqueline D. Bowens, President & CEO, D.C. Hospital Association; Liz DeBarros, CEO, District of Columbia Building Industry Association; Edward Krauze, CEO, Greater Capital Area Association of Realtors; Solomon Keene, President & CEO, Hotel Association of Washington, DC; Malcom Fox, Executive Director, Opportunity DC.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the letter states that if this disapproval resolution were enacted, the office would have to suspend the current D.C. tax filing season for several months to update tax forms, schedules, and instructions, to reprogram the tax processing system, and for tax preparation companies to update their software. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a joint letter to Congress from D.C.'s elected Mayor and the elected council chairman strongly opposing this disapproval resolution. February 2, 2026. Hon. Mike Johnson, Speaker, House of Representatives. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Minority Leader, House of Representatives. Hon. John Thune, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate. Hon. Charles Schumer, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate. Dear Speaker Johnson, Leader Jeffries, Leader Thune, and Leader Schumer: We write to express our strong opposition to Joint Resolution of Disapproval H.J. Res. 142 and Joint Resolution of Disapproval S.J. Res. 102. These resolutions are an intrusion on the District's Home Rule authority and would have major and immediate impacts on tax administration in the District. We very strongly urge you and your colleagues to oppose these resolutions. The District of Columbia is one of many jurisdictions across the Nation that routinely modifies its local tax code in accordance with federal tax laws, including choosing to decouple from federal tax changes to address local concerns or mitigate projected fiscal impacts. At the end of last year, multiple states and the District decided to decouple their tax codes from some provisions of H.R. 1. While the District adopted the majority of H.R. 1 provisions, a small number were temporarily set aside. These decisions were made through the District's legislative process and are the same type of policy judgments that every state and local government routinely makes on behalf of their residents. The timing of these resolutions are especially problematic. The District is already a month into the 2026 tax year and has begun accepting and processing tax returns. Disapproval at this stage would create huge administrative challenges, require taxpayers to re-file their taxes, render existing guidance and forms obsolete, and necessitate rapid mid-year changes to tax administration systems. It is unclear how quickly commercial tax preparation software could be updated to accommodate such changes, and District residents and businesses would likely experience confusion, as well as delays. The resolutions would lead to the District's income tax filing deadlines to be pushed to Fall 2026 and would cause millions of dollars in additional expenses. We strongly urge you to oppose the disapproval resolutions and to respect the District's governance of its local fiscal affairs. Sincerely, Muriel Bowser, Mayor. Phil Mendelson, Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this unprecedented, undemocratic, and paternalistic disapproval resolution. This disapproval resolution would sabotage the District of Columbia's tax filing season and credit rating. The substance of the D.C. law that is the subject of this disapproval resolution should be irrelevant to Members of Congress since there is never justification for Congress to legislate on local D.C. matters, but I will discuss it. The D.C. law, which the D.C. Council unanimously passed, established a child tax credit, increased an existing earned income tax credit, and decoupled D.C.'s tax code from some of the tax provisions in the so- called One Big Beautiful Bill Act. This disapproval resolution would repeal the D.C. law. Let's be clear: The D.C. law changed only the D.C. tax code. It did not, and could not, change the Federal tax code. The D.C. tax filing season began last week. This disapproval resolution would change D.C.'s tax code during the current tax filing season, causing an administrative nightmare for D.C. and tax software companies. D.C. would have to suspend the current tax filing season for several months to update tax forms and guidance, and taxpayers who have already filed returns would have to file amended returns. The D.C. law is not unique. Like D.C., approximately half of the States, both red and blue, automatically adopt Federal tax changes in their tax codes. However, like D.C., several of these States, both red and blue, have passed laws decoupling their tax codes from some of the tax provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The approximately 20 States, both red and blue, that link their tax codes to the Federal tax code, as of a specific date would have to change that date to adopt the tax provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The D.C. law expires in 225 days, giving D.C. time to evaluate which provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act it wants to permanently adopt or decouple. This disapproval resolution could harm D.C.'s credit rating, forcing D.C. to pay higher interest rates. Rating agencies consider the possibility of Congress meddling in D.C.'s fiscal matters as negative for D.C.'s rating, but also consider as positive that ``Congress has never voided or otherwise overturned a revenue-raising measure approved by the District.'' If this disapproval resolution were enacted, Congress would have overturned a revenue-raising measure approved by D.C. Last year, when Congress cut D.C.'s local budget by $1 billion, D.C.'s rating was put on negative watch. This disapproval resolution is an even bigger threat to D.C.'s rating. The D.C. law established a child tax credit and increased an existing earned income tax credit. These credits are projected to reduce child poverty in D.C. by 20 percent. This disapproval resolution would repeal these credits. The D.C. law is expected to generate approximately $600 million in local revenue over the next 4 years. If this disapproval resolution were enacted, D.C. would have to make up for that lost revenue, such as by cutting critical programs. The 700,000 D.C. residents, the majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable and worthy of self-government. I urge my colleagues to oppose this disapproval resolution and to instead make D.C. a State. Free D.C. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to Congress from the D.C. Office of the Chief Financial Officer, an independent office established by Congress. Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, February 2, 2026. Re Impact of Joint Resolution on District of Columbia Finances. Hon. Mike Johnson, Speaker, House of Representatives. Hon. John Thune, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Minority Leader, House of Representatives. Hon. Charles Schumer, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate. Dear Speaker Johnson, Leader Jeffries, Leader Thune, and Leader Schumer: We are providing information on the financial implications to the Government of the District of Columbia from Joint Resolution of Disapproval H.J. Res. 142 and Joint Resolution of Disapproval S.J. Res. 102 (collectively, the Joint Resolution). If the joint Resolution passes both the House and Senate and is signed by the President, the changes in District law enacted by The District's Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025 (the Tax Amendment Act), which de-coupled the District from certain provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, H.R. 1, Public Law 119-21 (OBBBA), would be invalidated. This document reviews the implications of the Joint Resolution on the District's current four-year Financial Plan, the District's tax administration processes, and the District's cash position. Financial Plan The Joint Resolution would not have a material impact on the four-year financial plan approved by the Mayor and D.C. Council, and by Congress. In the September 2025 Revenue Estimate issued by my office, the District estimated a reduction in revenue from the implementation of OBBBA provisions. However, such reduction was estimated to be offset by revenues collected by the District under current law (i.e., not taking into account the impact of implementing the Tax Amendment Act) and as a result of the general state of the economy in the District of Columbia. In particular, personal income tax revenues are estimated to be strong due to capital gains earnings by higher-income households, and corporate tax revenues are expected to increase due to strong growth in earnings by businesses that have a presence in the District of Columbia. Tax Administration Enactment of the Joint Resolution will disrupt the District's ability to collect income tax revenues associated with annual income tax filings due by April 15, 2026. Several of the provisions in the District's Tax Amendment Act were applicable for tax year 2025, and for certain taxpayers, tax years 2022, 2023, and 2024. Beginning last fall, the District's tax administration agency, the Office of Tax and Revenue (OTR), undertook efforts to implement the legislation in time for the opening of the tax filing season on January 26, 2026. Implementation required substantial changes to OTR's systems and taxpayer forms for nearly all aspects of income and franchise tax filings by District residents, trusts and estates, as well as all corporations, unincorporated businesses, and partnerships doing business in the District. It also required OTR staff training and outreach to tax software vendors, the tax preparer community, and taxpayers. Enactment of the Joint Resolution means that the changes that were made to OTR's forms and systems for tax year 2025 will no longer be consistent with District law. As a result, OTR would need to suspend the current filing season until such time as it can make the necessary changes to revert the District's tax administration system to conform with legal requirements prior to the Tax Amendment Act's enactment. The necessary changes include, but are not limited to: Updating forms, schedules, and instructions. Forms and other relevant filing documents must be developed. Additionally, preparation for each filing season typically begins immediately after the start of the previous season. If OTR is required to re-work tax year 2025 now, they will be managing two filing seasons concurrently (i.e., Tax Years 2025 and 2026). Systems changes. Reprogramming the tax processing system will be required. This includes development of business and system requirements, and tasks associated with Modernized Electronic Filing. As noted previously, OTR would be required to manage two filing seasons concurrently. Changes to software of tax processing vendors. Vendors will need to reconfigure software to allow taxpayers to properly file. If the District must reverse the changes pursuant to implementing the Act, it could be at risk of losing vendors who normally participate in DC tax filing, as the current products that are already approved and in use would no longer be valid. For the current filing season, OTR managers estimate that adjustments will likely require several months, which would extend District income tax filing deadlines into fall 2026. The adjustments will also generate millions of dollars of additional expenses that must be paid by the District's General Fund resources. Cash Flow Invalidation of the Tax Amendment Act may lead to District cash flow disruptions. In addition to the administrative burdens described above, the District is assessing the impact of the invalidation of the Tax Amendment Act on the timing of collections of income tax revenues and the related cash flow, among other matters. For example, it is possible that an extension in filing deadlines could lead to a shift in the timing of collections in income tax revenue from Fiscal Year 2026 to Fiscal Year 2027, thereby creating a shortfall in cash collections of approximately $400 million in FY 2026. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions. Sincerely, Glen Lee.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Golden Thirteen Congressional Gold Medal Act. This bill would award a posthumous Congressional Gold Medal to the 13 men who became the first African American commissioned and warrant officers in the United States Navy. In 1944, the Navy began officer training for 16 African American men. At that time, there were no African American officers in the Navy. These 16 men were expected to complete their officer training in eight weeks, even though officer training was normally 16 weeks. These 16 men supported each other, including by placing blankets over their windows and studying as a group by flashlight at night. Each brought to the group his own expertise to help the others. When their officer training was completed, all 16 passed their exams. With some claiming that the group must have cheated, the group was forced to retake certain exams, and the group scored even higher. The average grade for the group was 3.89 out of 4.0, the highest average of any class in Navy history at that time. Even though all 16 men passed their exams, the Navy commissioned only 12 of the men, and a 13th was made a chief warrant officer. Three returned to the enlisted ranks, with no reason given by the Navy. During the men's careers, they oversaw all-Black units or the training of Black recruits. One would go on to make his career in the Navy after World War II, with the rest returning to civilian life. In the 1970s, Captain Edward Secrest, a former instructor, gave the group the name the ``Golden Thirteen.'' I urge my colleagues to support this bill to honor the first African American officers in the Navy: Jesse Walter Arbor; Phillip G. Barnes; Samuel Edward Barnes; Dalton Louis Baugh, Sr.; George Clinton Cooper; Reginald Ernest Goodwin; James Edward Hair; Charles Byrd Lear; Graham Edward Martin; Dennis Denmark Nelson; John Walter Reagan; Frank Ellis Sublett, Jr.; and William Sylvester White. The three men who passed their exams but were not made officers were Augustus Alves; J.B. Pinkney; and Lewis ``Mummy'' Williams.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill that would permit commercial filmmaking and photography throughout the grounds of the U.S. Capitol Complex. Currently, such filmmaking and photography is only authorized in Union Square. Film and television productions that involve the Capitol should not have to go to other cities or use a fake building. This bill would allow commercial filmmaking and photography outside of the Capitol and congressional office buildings by permit, as long as neither chamber is in session. The policy allowing commercial filmmaking and photography in Union Square shows that the Capitol Police can handle commercial filmmaking and photography at the Capitol Complex, especially when Congress is not in session. However, the Union Square vantage point captures the least familiar view of the Capitol. Preventing commercial filmmakers and photographers from shooting throughout the Capitol Complex is neither business-friendly nor true to the Nation's democratic traditions. Encouraging commercial filmmaking and photography at the Capitol would help spread the story of democracy around the world. This bill would give the Capitol Police complete discretion to issue a permit for commercial filmmaking and photography throughout the Capitol Complex under the same terms and conditions as those for commercial filmmaking and photography in Union Square. No policy or security reasons exist to justify limiting commercial filmmaking and photography at the Capitol Complex to Union Square, especially considering that permits are necessary. Visitors are regularly seen taking videos and pictures around the Capitol Complex, demonstrating the arbitrary nature of limiting commercial filmmaking and photography to Union Square. This bill would provide the Capitol Police authority to charge fees to cover any costs incurred by the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) for permit approval. The fees would be deposited into the Capitol Trust Account, which was established to accept fees collected from commercial filmmaking and photography permits for Union Square. Amounts in the Capitol Trust Account would be available without fiscal year limitation for maintenance, improvements, and projects the AOC considers appropriate, subject to the approval of the Appropriations Committees. Views of the Capitol are among America's most iconic. Limiting commercial filmmaking and photography of the Capitol, an important vehicle for telling the Nation's story, does not serve the American people. Commercial films and photographs of the Capitol, the seat of our democracy, are perhaps the best modern vehicles for telling the Nation's story and showcasing its democratic system of government. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Courts and Public Defender Service Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would provide for coverage of employees of the local D.C. courts and the D.C. Public Defender Service (PDS) under the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977 (DCHRA). In 2022, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that the DCHRA, which protects employees of the D.C. government and private employers from discrimination, is inapplicable to employees of the local D.C. courts. The court has not ruled on the applicability of the DCHRA to PDS employees. The local D.C. courts and PDS are unique entities, and they sometimes fall through the regulatory cracks. They are neither federal nor D.C. government entities, though both were created and are funded by Congress, and their employees are treated as federal employees for some employee benefits. This bill would ensure that their employees have comprehensive protections from and remedies for employment discrimination. While employees of the local D.C. courts and PDS are protected by federal anti-discrimination laws, the DCHRA provides much broader protections and remedies for employees than federal anti-discrimination laws. While the D.C. Council may have the authority to enact this bill itself, only Congress has the clear authority to do so, given the express limitation in the D.C. Home Rule Act on the Council's authority to legislate on matters affecting the operations of the local D.C. courts, and given that Congress has generally served as the legislative body for PDS matters. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Transportation Funding Equality Act. This bill would make the District of Columbia eligible for three federal programs that support the development and revitalization of public transportation systems in the same manner as states are eligible for these programs. It would also make D.C. eligible in the same manner as states are eligible for a transportation program that would support the replacement and removal of infrastructure that damages the ecosystems of the Anacostia and Potomac rivers. D.C. residents pay the same federal taxes as residents of the states and therefore D.C. is almost always treated as a state in federal programs. First, this bill would treat D.C. as a state in the High-Density States Formula for certain grants from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund. Currently, only states are eligible for these grants. Second, this bill would treat D.C. as a state under the Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program. Under the formula grants for this program, each state is authorized to receive a minimum of $4 million per year, while D.C. is authorized to receive a minimum of only $1 million per year. Third, this bill would treat D.C. as a state under the National Culvert Removal, Replacement, and Restoration Grant Program. Currently, only states and units of local government are eligible for these grants, and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has held that D.C. is ineligible, even though D.C. operates as the functional equivalent of a city, county and state. Fourth, this bill would treat D.C. as a state under the Safe Streets for All Program. Cities, counties and political subdivisions of a state are eligible for this program, but DOT has held that D.C. is ineligible. The programs in this bill fund the modernization of bus and rail fleets, the purchase of zero-emission transit vehicles, the improvement of transit station accessibility for all users, the extension of transit services to new communities, the replacement and repair of culverts and the implementation of roadway safety improvements for all road users. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Postal Facilities Security Camera Act. This bill would require, subject to appropriations, the United States Postal Service (USPS) to install security cameras at each postal facility to protect USPS employees, customers and property. This bill would also authorize appropriations to carry out the camera program. I asked USPS to expand the use of security cameras at postal facilities in the District of Columbia and across the country after learning that a D.C. resident had been robbed in the parking lot of a post office in D.C. The parking lot was not monitored by a security camera. USPS responded that it was not financially feasible to install and maintain security cameras at every postal facility. USPS should have security cameras monitoring its facilities--both inside and outside--to protect employees, customers and property. Security cameras can deter crime and assist in arrests and prosecutions. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Chief Financial Officer Salary Home Rule Act, which would give the District of Columbia authority to increase the pay of its Chief Financial Officer (CFO). The D.C. CFO is a local D.C. official and is paid with local D.C. funds. D.C. should have authority to set the pay of all its employees. In the 117th Congress, the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability passed this bill. Under the D.C. Home Rule Act, Congress established a maximum rate of pay of the CFO, and the D.C. Council does not have authority to increase that rate. Congress does not cap, or otherwise establish, the pay of any other D.C. employee. Under this bill, the CFO would be paid at the greater of a rate equal to the current maximum rate of pay or a rate established in law by D.C. D.C. requested that I introduce this bill to enable it to retain and recruit the best CFOs. The CFO was established by Congress in 1995. Congress vested the CFO with extraordinary powers and designed the CFO to be independent of the Mayor and Council. D.C. cannot obligate or expend funds without the CFO's approval that there are sufficient funds. The CFO manages a $22 billion budget that consists of state, county, and city functions, and the CFO has more than 1,700 employees. The CFO may be removed only for cause by the Mayor, subject to the approval of two-thirds of the Council and a 30-day congressional review and comment period. This bill would help maintain the independence of the CFO by establishing a permanent floor on the CFO's pay and by prohibiting the Council from reducing the CFO's pay during the CFO's term. Although the D.C. CFO is the most powerful non-elected official in D.C., a number of D.C. employees are paid more than the CFO. D.C. must compete with both the private and public sectors for high-quality CFOs, and there are many private and public-sector CFOs who are paid more than the D.C. CFO. This bill is critical to the financial operations of D.C. and is an important step to increase home rule for D.C. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Thrift Savings Plan Emergency Withdrawal Act of 2025, which would expand the circumstances in which a federal employee recently separated from the federal government can take a penalty-free withdrawal from their Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) account. This bill would help former federal employees pay their bills after separation. First, this bill would allow a penalty-free withdrawal to make up the gap between the interim payments a retiree receives during the period the Office of Personnel Management is calculating the retiree's final annuity and the estimated final annuity. A retiree's interim payment is generally only 60 percent to 80 percent of the finalized net payment. Second, this bill would allow a penalty-free withdrawal if an individual is involuntarily separated from the federal government. In both cases, the maximum withdrawal would be $100,000. Individuals would be able to make a withdrawal for up to a year after separation and to repay the withdrawn amount within three years to avoid the existing early withdrawal penalty, which is a 10 percent additional tax. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Marijuana in Federally Assisted Housing Parity Act. This bill would permit the use of marijuana in federally assisted housing, including public housing and Section 8 housing, in compliance with the marijuana laws of the state (including the District of Columbia) where the property is located. Senator Cory Booker is introducing the companion bill. Individuals living in federally assisted housing should not be denied admission, or fear eviction, for using a product that is legal in the state where they reside. Adult-use marijuana, medical marijuana or both are currently legal in 40 states, the District of Columbia and three territories, and approximately 90 percent of Americans support legalized medical marijuana. Under federal law, users of drugs that are illegal under federal law, including marijuana, are prohibited from being admitted into federally assisted housing. Moreover, federal law allows landlords to evict residents of federally assisted housing for using illegal drugs. The federal government has begun to change its approach to marijuana. For example, for the last several years, Congress has prohibited the Department of Justice (DOJ) from using federal funds to prevent jurisdictions from implementing their medical marijuana laws. This bill would similarly allow individuals to use marijuana in federally assisted housing in compliance with a state's marijuana laws. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), like DOJ, should not be allowed to interfere with jurisdictions implementing their marijuana laws. Under this bill, HUD must develop regulations that restrict smoking marijuana in federally assisted housing in the same manner and in the same locations as HUD restricts smoking tobacco in federally assisted housing. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill that would designate certain areas of the District of Columbia as an empowerment zone. This bill effectively would reauthorize many of the unique federal tax incentives for business investment in D.C. that expired in 2011. With the Trump administration's mass firings of federal employees, budget cuts and proposed relocation of federal agencies, as well as the continued prevalence of remote and hybrid work, this bill is especially important. In 1993, Congress created the national empowerment zone program to encourage investment in low-income communities and delegated to federal agencies the authority to designate communities as empowerment zones. D.C. was not so designated. However, in 1997, working primarily with Republicans in Congress, I created federal tax incentives for investment in D.C. by businesses and individuals. The business tax incentives were similar to, but more generous than, those available under the national empowerment zone program. I got the D.C. tax incentives continuously reauthorized until 2011, when Congress refused to extend these tax incentives. At the same time, Congress extended the national empowerment zone program, and the program was last extended through 2025. Under this bill, low-income neighborhoods in D.C. would be treated as an empowerment zone as long as the national empowerment zone program remains in effect. Congress has long recognized that the benefits of tax incentives for investment in low-income communities outweigh the costs, as it has continuously extended the national empowerment zone program. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Special Elections Home Rule Act. This bill would give the District of Columbia complete authority to set the date of special elections for local offices, like other jurisdictions. This bill would remove a limitation on D.C. that is not only inconsistent with the purpose of the D.C. Home Rule Act, which is to grant D.C. self-government, but is also harmful. In 2012, I got legislation enacted that gave the D.C. Board of Elections (Board) more flexibility to set the date of special elections for local offices. Although I sought complete authority for D.C. to set the date of special elections, the 2012 law did not include this home- rule principle. The Home Rule Act originally required the Board to hold special elections on the first Tuesday occurring more than 114 days after a vacancy and allowed the Board to schedule special elections on the same day as the next general election if that election occurred within 60 days from when a special election would otherwise have been held. This inflexibility led to special elections being held on religious holidays and forced D.C. to hold a special election separate from an upcoming general election, costing D.C. hundreds of thousands of dollars. The 2012 law requires the Board to hold a special election on a Tuesday occurring between 70 and 174 days after a vacancy. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce of a bill that would require the Library of Congress (LOC) to install the District of Columbia seal in the Main Reading Room of the Thomas Jefferson Building of the LOC. Specifically, the bill would require the LOC to install a stained glass panel depicting the D.C. seal among the panels depicting the seals of all the states and territories that existed when the Thomas Jefferson Building was constructed. The seals of Hawaii and Alaska are the only state seals not included in the display because they were not states or territories when the building was constructed. The fact that these two states were not part of the Union at the time argues for the inclusion of D.C., which, after all, was the Nation's capital at the time. This omission was brought to my attention by a D.C. resident, Luis Landau, a former docent at the LOC. D.C. residents have always had all the obligations of American citizenship, including paying federal taxes and serving in all the Nation's wars, including the War of 1812, during which the Capitol building, which then housed the LOC, was burned, prompting construction of the Thomas Jefferson Building. It is, therefore, without question that D.C. and its residents should receive equal treatment among the stained glass panels that portray the history of the United States. D.C. residents deserve to have their history and American citizenship recognized. There is existing evidence that the D.C. seal should have been depicted. The Members of Congress room in the Thomas Jefferson Building, which is not open to the public, depicts the D.C. seal with the depiction of state seals on its ceiling. This precedent reinforces D.C.'s request to be represented among the stained glass panels in the Main Reading Room, which is open to the public. Congress already includes D.C., or has corrected D.C.'s omission, when honoring the states. For example, each state is entitled to two statues in the Capitol, and D.C. has two statues in the Capitol. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 requires the armed services to display the D.C. flag whenever the flags of the states are displayed. Legislation gave D.C. a coin after D.C. was omitted from legislation creating coins for the states. It is long overdue to display the D.C. seal with the seals of the states in the Main Reading Room. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 5107, an undemocratic and paternalistic bill. Free D.C.