Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this bill would direct the Department of Transportation to conduct a study of the benefits of one-seat commuter rail transit nationwide and the obstacles transit agencies face in providing that level of service. This bill also would require a cost-benefit analysis for one specific rail transit line, New Jersey Transit's Raritan Valley Line. A comprehensive study was completed last year by New Jersey Transit on this topic. The study concluded that the best option to provide better transit service for that region is to move ahead with the Gateway Program, which will provide more capacity for all New Jersey Transit rail lines that go into New York Penn Station. Local officials in New Jersey and New York are actively pursuing that option and have received substantial funding from the Biden administration, including under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act through the Mega Grant Program, the Federal-State Partnership, and the Capital Investment Grant Program. Currently, Federal Transit Administration staff are working hard to finalize a full funding grant agreement to deliver $6.9 billion for the new Hudson River tunnel, which would be the largest capital investment grant in history. For those who are interested in supporting more New Jersey Transit services, or for those Members from other parts of the country who have their own transit priorities, one of the best ways to support them is for Congress to provide substantial funding through the Capital Investment Grant program. Given that, I have a request for my colleagues today: In addition to just voting to study the need for more transit service, I would encourage them to also support funding for more transit service. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to work toward sustainable transit investment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I have no more speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this bill would designate portions of the Ports-to- Plains Corridor in Texas as the future Interstate 27. This route plays an important role in commerce, helping facilitate the movement of agricultural products from hubs to markets. This bill incorporates technical assistance from the Federal Highway Administration to prevent duplicative route numbering from being used on different roadway spurs. This change will make the designation clearer for travelers. Similar bipartisan legislation passed the Senate by unanimous consent earlier this year. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this bill, which I introduced with the Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management Subcommittee Chair, Scott Perry, would direct the General Services Administration to sell the Federal property known as the Daniel Webster School in the District of Columbia for fair market value by December 31st, 2025. Built in 1882, the Daniel Webster School, a red brick, three-story building has been used for a variety of purposes over the years, however, since the 1980s, the building which is located in downtown D.C. has been vacant and has fallen into disrepair. The General Services Administration purchased the Webster School 20 years ago, yet the school remains unoccupied, draining the General Service Administration's resources for decades. This bill would return the site to productive use. During my service in Congress, I have enacted bipartisan bills to transfer unused and underused Federal land in D.C. to the D.C. government or the private sector to redevelop neighborhoods and to generate tax revenue. This includes the southeast and southwest waterfronts. My hope is to see the Daniel Webster School similarly reactivated. The sale provision in this bill is the same as the sale provision in the bill enacted in 2016 that directed the General Services Administration to sell the general property in D.C. known as the Cotton Annex, which is now being converted into housing. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Perry for his partnership on this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today. I introduce a bill that would designate certain areas of the District of Columbia as empowerment zones. This bill would effectively reauthorize many of the unique federal tax incentives for business investment in D.C. that expired in 2011. D.C.'s downtown, which has been the economic engine of the city, has been particularly hard hit by the increase in remote and hybrid work since the COVID-19 pandemic. making this bill 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 among those 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 incentives were similar to, but more generous than, those available under the national empowerment zone program. I got the D.C. incentives reauthorized regularly until 2011, when Congress refused to extend the D.C. incentives. At the same time, Congress extended the national empowerment zone program, and the program was last extended through 2025. Under my bill, low-income neighborhoods in D.C. would be treated as empowerment zones as long as the national empowerment zone program remains in effect. Congress has recognized that the benefits of tax incentives for investment in economically distressed communities outweigh the costs, as it has continuously extended the national empowerment zone program. The tax incentives for D.C. were the only tax incentives for a big city that were not extended, even though they were initially created by Republicans, with the help of several Democrats. The expiration of the tax incentives for D.C. was tragically timed, as the low-income parts of D.C., which needed the incentives most, were ready for revitalization. As we work to revitalize downtown D.C. and Wards 5, 7 and 8, the need for these incentives for D.C. is of paramount importance. The tax incentives for D.C. were effective and their costs were de minimis. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Federal Government Advertising Equity Accountability Act, which would require all federal agencies to include in their annual budget requests to Congress the amount they spend on advertising contracts with small disadvantaged businesses (SDBs) and businesses owned by minorities and women. Federal agencies would be required to provide prior and projected total expenditures for such contracts. At my request, the Committee on Appropriations has been requiring such information from many agencies for the last several years, but this bill would codify this requirement and apply it to all federal agencies. In 2007, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined spending on advertising contracts with minority-owned businesses by five agencies--the Department of Defense, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of the Interior and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration--and found that only five percent of the $4.3 billion available for advertising contracts went to minority businesses. In light of these concerning findings, several Members of Congress and I sent letters to GAO in April 2016 and June 2022 requesting updated information on the amount of federal advertising dollars spent with SDBs and businesses owned by minorities and women. A GAO report released in July 2018 showed that in fiscal year 2017, only 16 percent of the federal government's advertising contract obligations went to SDBs and businesses owned by minorities and women. GAO agreed last year to issue an updated report. The federal government is the largest advertiser in the United States, and it has an obligation to ensure equitable access to its contracts for SDBs and businesses owned by minorities and women. The GAO's findings demonstrate that there is still much progress to be made. The regular collection of information on federal advertising contracts with SDBs and businesses owned by women and minorities is essential to bridging the gap between what current statistics show and a more inclusive advertising landscape. This bill would help achieve this goal while also promoting transparency and encouraging federal agencies to strive to reach minorities, who often receive the news from smaller media outlets that serve communities of color. The requirement that agencies submit prior and projected information on the amount of advertising dollars spent with SDBs and businesses owned by minorities and women would allow federal agencies to evaluate their progress. The regular collection of this information would also demonstrate that the promotion of equity in advertising, and in all areas of government, is a continuous effort and is important to the mission of every agency. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia National Guard Federal Employee Leave Fairness Act, which would prohibit the Department of Defense (DOD) from recouping pay from District of Columbia National Guard (DCNG) members who are federal civilian employees or District of Columbia employees and took encampment leave. The DOD claims these employees were not entitled to encampment leave without a loss of pay. While I disagree with the DOD's interpretation, I am introducing this bill to resolve this matter. Congress partially addressed this matter in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (NDAA) by adopting my amendment that effectively prohibited the DOD from recouping pay for encampment leave taken by DCNG members after the enactment of the NDAA. That amendment, however, did not apply to encampment leave taken before the enactment of the NDAA because of budget rules. In 1899, Congress codified in the D.C. Code the original authority for entitlement to leave when federal civilian employees were mobilized by the DCNG. In 1968, that authority was moved into 5 U.S.C. Sec. 6323. In that same year, Congress authorized two additional leave entitlements in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 6323, as well as established a salary offset provision in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5519 referencing those two additional leave entitlements. However, because the U.S. Code had not been updated to include the earlier DCNG authority, the U.S. Code contained a duplicate subsection, one referring to DCNG mobilizations and one to a general leave entitlement for the National Guard and Reserves. Based on this legislative drafting error, the DOD has sometimes attempted to apply a salary offset to DCNG members who are federal employees and took encampment leave, and the DOD has indicated it will do so again soon. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), has said that 5 U.S.C. Sec. 6323(c) was not intended to be subject to a salary offset under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5519 and noted in 1990 that the ``[Office of Personnel Management] advised that it now believes that the salary offset provisions of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5519 do not apply to D.C. National Guardsmen under the circumstances described in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 6323(c).'' However, the Office of Personnel Management once again believes that the salary offset provisions of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5519 apply to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 6323(c). DCNG members sincerely believed that they were taking this leave correctly, they have relied on this money, the recoupment will cause financial hardships for current and former DCNG members and it was Congress' intent that DCNG members were entitled to this leave without a salary offset. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Service Academies District of Columbia Equality Act, which would give the District of Columbia the same number of appointments and nominations to the U.S. service academies as states. Currently, each Member of the House and each senator is allocated five appointments to each service academy-- the U.S. Military Academy, the U.S. Naval Academy and the U.S. Air Force Academy--and each Member of the House and each senator is allowed 10 nominations for each appointment. Therefore, since D.C. has no senators, D.C. is deprived of 10 appointments and, assuming all appointments are vacant, 10 nominations to each service academy. I am pleased Senator Tim Kaine has introduced the companion bill. This bill would provide equality for D.C. residents who choose to serve their country by applying to a service academy. It is remarkable that D.C. residents volunteer to serve a country that denies them statehood, congressional voting rights and full home rule. D.C. residents have fought in every American war, and D.C. residents, who pay all federal taxes, including paying more federal taxes per capita than the residents of any state, deserve the same opportunity to attend our prestigious service academies as residents of states. D.C.'s population (690,000) is larger than that of two states and is in line with the six states that have a population under one million. D.C. servicemembers have helped secure voting rights for people around the world, yet have always been denied those same rights when they returned home. D.C. residents deserve equality at the service academies. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment. This amendment would prohibit the District of Columbia from using its local funds to require an individual to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. How D.C. spends its local funds, which consists of local taxes and fees, should be a decision for D.C., not Congress. If D.C.'s local elected officials want to spend local funds on requiring individuals to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, they should have the authority to do so. If they do not want to spend local D.C. funds on requiring individuals to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, they should have the authority not to do so. D.C.'s local elected officials are accountable to D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like the decisions of their local elected officials, they can vote them out of office. D.C. residents, a majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable and worthy of governing themselves. If House Republicans cared about democratic principles or D.C. residents, they would bring my D.C. statehood bill which would give D.C. residents voting representation in Congress and full local self-government to this floor. Congress has the constitutional authority to admit the State of Washington, D.C. It simply lacks the will. I say to every Member of Congress, keep your hands off D.C. If you want to legislate on local D.C. matters, become a D.C. resident and get elected Mayor or councilmember. Mr. Chair, I urge colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I thank my good friend for yielding. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment. This amendment would prohibit the use of funds in this bill for the purchase or construction of any new building in the District of Columbia. The purchase or construction of new Federal buildings can save taxpayers money and improve government operations. The ongoing consolidation of the Department of Homeland Security's headquarters at St. Elizabeth's in the District of Columbia is a prime example of how new construction can result in significant savings for taxpayers. The Department is currently housed in more than 50 separate locations throughout the national capital region, and 79 percent of those leases will expire in the next 5 years. Consolidating the Department at St. Elizabeth's will reduce the Department's leasing portfolio and costs by at least 20 percent in accordance with the Reduce the Footprint policy of the General Services Administration as required by Congress and is estimated to result in $1.17 billion in savings. If this amendment were adopted, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the Office of Intelligence and Analysis would be forced to extend expensive short-term leases at significant taxpayer cost. The consolidation of the Department at St. Elizabeth's is important for streamlining operations and coordination among key Department agencies and offices. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment. This amendment would prohibit the District of Columbia from using its local funds to carry out the section of D.C.'s Immunization of School Students Act of 1979 that required students to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. D.C. has already repealed this section. While the repeal of the section expires on January 23, 2024, yesterday the D.C. Council passed legislation that would permanently repeal this section. Nevertheless, how D.C. spends its local funds, which consist of local taxes and fees, should be a decision for D.C., not Congress. If D.C.'s locally elected officials want to spend local D.C. funds to carry out COVID-19 vaccine requirements for students, they should have the authority to do so. If they do not want to spend D.C.'s local funds to carry out COVID-19 vaccine requirements for students, they should have the authority not to do so. D.C.'s locally elected officials are accountable to D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like the decisions of their locally elected officials, they can vote them out of office. D.C. residents, the majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable of governing themselves. If House Republicans cared about democratic principles or D.C. residents, they would bring my D.C. statehood bill, which would give D.C. residents voting representation in Congress and full local self-government, to this floor. Congress has the constitutional authority to admit the State of Washington, D.C. It simply lacks the will. I say to every Member of Congress: Keep your hands off D.C. If you want to legislate on local D.C. matters, become a D.C. resident and get elected Mayor or councilmember. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the critically important and remarkable work of Monica Bibbs, who recently stepped down as Director of School Strategies & Logistics at the W.B. Patterson Elenrentary School, a public school in the District of Columbia. At W.B. Patterson Elementary School, Ms. Bibbs delivered high-quality work on time, prioritized tasks and managed her time well and demonstrated excellent organizational skills. Ms. Bibbs began her teaching career in 1987 at H.D. Woodson Senior High School as a mathematics teacher. In 2007, she went to work in central administration as a secondary school numeracy coach and mathematics content specialist. In 2014, she went to work at W.B. Patterson Elementary School as an Assistant Principal, where she worked collaboratively to achieve team goals and contributed positively to team dynamics, fostering a positive work environment. In 2016, she began serving as Director of School Strategies & Logistics, a role she performed with dedication and a strong work ethic until her retirement this year. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing Monica Bibbs and her nearly 35 years of incredible service to public schools in D.C.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding to me. Madam Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose this rule and the fiscal year 2024 Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill. The bill blocks, repeals, or amends ten laws and policies adopted by the District of Columbia's locally elected officials. The rule also makes in order three amendments that would block D.C. from spending its local funds, which consist of local taxes and fees, to carry out local D.C. laws and policies. While Congress has the constitutional authority to legislate on local D.C. matters, it does not have a constitutional duty to do so. Instead, legislating on local D.C. matters is a choice. The Supreme Court has held that Congress may delegate ``fully legislative power'' to D.C. on local D.C. matters. D.C.'s local legislature, the D.C. Council, has 13 members. All members are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like the laws the Council adopts, they can vote those members out of office. That is called democracy. Congress has 435 voting Members. The Members are elected by residents of the States. None are elected by or accountable to D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like the laws Congress adopts, they cannot vote the Members out of office. This is the antithesis of democracy. The Revolutionary War was fought to give consent to the governed and to end taxation without representation. Yet, D.C. residents cannot consent to any action taken by Congress, whether on national or local matters, and pay full Federal taxes. Indeed, D.C. pays more Federal taxes per capita than any State and more total Federal taxes than 19 States. D.C. residents, the majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable and worthy of governing themselves. If House Republicans cared about Democratic principles affecting D.C. residents, they would bring my D.C. statehood bill, which would give D.C. residents voting representation in Congress and full local self-government to the floor. Congress has the constitutional authority to admit the State of Washington, D.C. It simply lacks the will.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment. This amendment would eliminate $150 million in Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act funding for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. This funding, which Congress has provided annually since 2008, supports much-needed high-priority capital and preventive maintenance projects, including rehabilitating crumbling rail station platforms, supporting first responder safety, repairing elevators and escalators, mitigating tunnel water leaks, and replacing aging and obsolete equipment on railcars. Hundreds of thousands of national capital region residents, visitors, and Federal Government employees rely on the Metro daily. Without this funding, there could be reductions in rail service and increased risk to the safety of riders, as well as increased road traffic emissions. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless amendment.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Words Matter for the District of Columbia Courts Act, which would remove the term ``retarded'' from Title 11 of the District of Columbia Code and replace it with more appropriate and respectful terminology. I am pleased that Representative Marc Molinaro is the co-lead of this bill. Removing the term from the law has bipartisan support. In 2010, Congress removed several instances of the term from federal law by passing Rosa's Law (P.L. 111-256). Earlier this year, I joined both Republican and Democratic colleagues in introducing the Words Matter Act, which would remove several more instances of the term from federal law. The term is used three times in Title 11 of the D.C. Code, and, under the D.C. Home Rule Act, only Congress can amend Title 11 of the D.C. Code. There was a time when the term was a clinical term, but in more recent years, it has become a slur used against people with intellectual disabilities. Words indisputably matter, and I know our country is better than keeping such language in our law. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Federal Gift Shop Tax Act, which would allow state and local governments to impose a sales tax at gift shops on federal property. These governments would be able to generate millions of dollars in new tax revenue. When the federal government engages in activity that is not inherently governmental, such as operating a gift shop, there is no reason to exempt customer purchases from a sales tax. The items sold at federal gift shops, such as jewelry, apparel, accessories, games and books, are subject to a sales tax if sold on private property. Customers are often unaware of the exemption from a sales tax at gift shops on federal property, so the introduction of a sales tax is unlikely to have a significant impact on gift shop sales. It would, however, create a valuable revenue stream for state and local governments. In addition, state and local governments often provide uncompensated services on federal property, such as fire service, and allowing them to impose a sales tax at gift shops on federal property would allow them to recoup some of these costs. This bill is of particular importance to the District of Columbia, which is home to a number of gift shops on federal property, such as at the Smithsonian Institution and the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker Pro Tempore, today, I introduce the No Fencing at the United States Capitol Complex Act, which would prohibit the installation of new permanent fencing on the grounds of the United States Capitol complex. I am pleased that Senator Chris Van Hollen is introducing this bill in the Senate. After the insurrectionist attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, the Capitol complex became an untraversable fortress surrounded by frightening fences capped with barbed wire--typical of authoritarian regimes. Although 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 on January 6th does not justify closing the complex to 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 January 6th 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 6th that we can and must address, including: taking threats of extremist violence seriously at an earlier stage; closing the Capitol building grounds during high- profile and high-threat events, as is typically done, but was not done on January 6th; manpower; building security; and training. Permanent fencing, which is incredibly imprecise, would not address those security lapses. It is more likely to keep out children, joggers and tourists than a coordinated attack on the Capitol. In fact, it is a form of security theater--it would make the Capitol ``look'' safer but mask the lack of state-of-the-art security measures that could prevent attacks in the future. Every threat to the Capitol since January 6th has been stopped by longstanding and new security measures and the excellent work of the Capitol Police. Permanent fencing would not aid the Capitol Police in stopping threats but it would create an image of authoritarianism, secrecy and inaccessibility. The Capitol complex is for all the American people, and, with proper security, must remain open to them. Permanent fencing would send an un-American message to the nation and the world, by transforming our democracy from one that is accessible, transparent and of the people to one that is closed off, secretive 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, 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. After January 6th, these residents and businesses were more than understanding as their neighborhoods turned into militarized zones. They waited patiently as officers checked their identification on their walks home or took alternative routes when they 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. The distance between government and the people has grown, with trust in government at historic lows. Installing permanent fencing at the Capitol complex would only increase that distance. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker Pro Tempore, 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 as federal 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. Under Title 11, 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 Pro Tempore, today, I introduce a bill that would prohibit the Department of Defense (DOD) and the District of Columbia National Guard (DCNG) from transferring personnel and equipment of the DCNG to DOD or the National Guard of a state or territory. The DOD has indicated it will restructure the DCNG. The DOD is considering, among other things, transferring the aviation units of the DCNG to the Maryland and Virginia National Guards. Transferring the aviation units would make D.C. residents and the nation's capital less safe. The DCNG is unique. The National Guards of the states and territories operate under dual federal and state/territorial jurisdiction, while the DCNG operates solely under federal jurisdiction. The governors of the states, as well as of the three territories with National Guards, control their National Guards, and the president has the authority to federalize the National Guards. The president controls the DCNG. The proposed transfer of aviation units is especially troubling. If the DCNG had no aviation units, the DCNG would be reliant on the National Guards of the states and territories or active-duty forces for aviation matters, such as intercepting aircraft, patrolling the skies and rescuing or evacuating people in emergencies. While the D.C. mayor or DCNG could request assistance from a state or territory in the event air assets were needed in D.C., there is no guarantee the air assets would be provided in a timely manner--or at all. While the president could use active-duty troops or federalize a state or territorial National Guard for aviation matters to assist D.C., the circumstances under which the president may federalize a National Guard are very limited. I note that I have introduced legislation, which the House passed twice last Congress, to give the D.C. mayor the same control over the DCNG that the governors have over their National Guards. I also note that I was outraged by the attacks on protestors by the DCNG after the killing of George Floyd. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.