Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this rule. I will have more to say tomorrow about the police accountability and transparency legislation enacted by the District of Columbia's local legislature, but I want to take this time to discuss democratic principles. It is true that Congress has the constitutional authority to legislate on our local D.C. matters, but it is false that Congress has a constitutional duty, obligation, or responsibility to do so. Instead, legislating on local D.C. matters is a choice. I remind my Republican colleagues, who claim to revere the Founders, what James Madison said in Federalist 43 about the residents of the Federal District: ``A municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them.'' The Supreme Court has held that Congress may delegate ``full legislative power'' on local D.C. matters. D.C. disapproval resolutions are profoundly undemocratic and paternalistic legislation. D.C.'s local legislature, the D.C. Council, has 13 members. The members are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how the members vote, they can vote them down. This is called democracy. Congress has 535 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 how the Members vote--even on legislation that applies only to D.C.--they cannot vote them out of office. The Revolutionary War was fought to give consent to the governed and to end taxation without representation. Yet nearly 700,000 D.C. residents cannot consent to any action taken by Congress, whether on national or local D.C. matters, while paying full Federal taxes. Indeed, D.C. pays more Federal taxes per capita than any State and more total Federal taxes than 23 States. If the House cared about democratic principles or D.C. residents, it would be voting on my statehood bill, the Washington, D.C., Admission Act, instead. Congress has the constitutional authority to admit the State of Washington, D.C. The House is choosing not to. It is a choice. Mr. Speaker, I will close by saying to all Members of the House: Keep your hands off of D.C.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Admiral Cecil D. Haney for his distinguished 38-year career in the United States Navy. Admiral Haney blazed a trail as the first Black four-star submariner, the first Black Pacific Fleet commander, the first Black Strategic Command commander and the second Black four-star admiral in the history of the Navy. Admiral Haney graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1978. He holds a master's degree in Engineering Acoustics and System Technology from the Naval Post Graduate School and a master's degree in National Security Strategy from the National Defense University. Admiral Haney received the Navy Distinguished Service Medal twice, the Defense Superior Service Medal three times, the Legion of Merit four times, the Navy Commendation Medal three times and the Navy Achievement Medal twice. Most recently, the United States Naval Academy Alumni Association honored him with the 2023 Distinguished Graduate Award. Since his retirement from the Navy, in 2016, Admiral Haney has served in leadership roles for multiple organizations, including the Aerospace Corporation, General Dynamics, Tenet Healthcare and Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. He is chairman of the Board of Directors for the Military Child Education Coalition. Admiral Haney has also served as a Blue and Gold Officer assisting applicants from predominantly underserved communities and currently serves as Naval Academy Foundation Board of Directors vice chairman. He is also on my Service Academy Selection Board. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to recognize Admiral Cecil Haney for his trailblazing career in the Navy and his incredible work in preparing the next generation of service members.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, on April 7th, I introduced a bill that would direct the Secretary of Transportation to submit a report to Congress containing recommendations on how to reduce helicopter noise in the District of Columbia. Recommendations would include altitude, number of flights, flight paths, time of day of flights, types of aircraft, operating procedures and pilot training. The Secretary would be required to consult with any federal agencies or departments that fly helicopters in D.C., the Metropolitan Police Department, any medical helicopter operators that routinely fly in D.C. and any other operator that routinely flies a helicopter in D.C. The report would be due to Congress no later than 180 days after the enactment of the bill. Even though D.C. has the most restricted airspace in the country, I hear from D.C. residents almost daily about the negative impact of helicopter noise on their lives. The noise can harm health and quality of life, and helicopters can even harm the structural integrity of homes. While I recognize the need for helicopters in D.C., the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Congress must do more to mitigate the harm to D.C. residents. In 2019, I led members of the National Capital Region (NCR) in requesting that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) study helicopter noise in the NCR. In 2021, GAO issued its report. GAO found that there had been nearly 90,000 helicopter flights in the NCR from 2017 to 2019. GAO recommended that the FAA develop a mechanism to exchange helicopter noise information with operators in the NCR. The FAA has indicated it is establishing such a mechanism. In February, I introduced the Reducing Helicopter Noise in the District of Columbia Act, which would require all helicopters in D.C. to fly at the maximum altitude permitted by the FAA in D.C., with limited exceptions. I urge my colleagues to support both bills.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chair, the so-called ``Lower Energy Costs Act'' is an attempt by the majority to strip environmental protections fought for by Congress over decades. The current leadership wishes to allow broad polluting, strip limitations on greenhouse gas emissions, and remove provisions of the Clean Water Act that not only protect our Nation's waters, but also affect the clean drinking water of everyday Americans. Division C, the Water Quality Certification and Energy Project Improvement Act, will neither improve energy projects nor streamline the water quality certification process. This section guts the Clean Water Act section 401 authority. The previous administration tried to significantly limit this authority in the interest of preventing oversight and accountability for those who polluted water sources. Now the majority is, again, attempting to gut this critical protection authority in favor of unclear, imprecise, and irresponsible policy, which would allow significant increases in water pollution without holding polluters accountable. This issue is particularly important to the District of Columbia because we are entirely reliant on the Potomac River for our drinking water. Under this bill, the headwaters of the Potomac River can be freely polluted in West Virginia, jeopardizing the water source of most of Northern Virginia, all of D.C., and much of southern Maryland. We are no strangers to this kind of pollution. Before the Clean Water Act, the Potomac River was rife with agricultural runoff, trash, and other pollution. But today it is a much cleaner and healthier river and used for all manner of recreational activities. This bill would jeopardize all the progress we have made for the entire Potomac River ecosystem.

Ms. NORTON. Under this bill, a project could threaten water quality, water supply, fish populations, or many other things, and D.C. and other jurisdictions would not get any say in preventing it. Polluters can act freely and to the extreme detriment of their neighbors downstream, affecting the accessibility of clean water. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the District of Columbia Code Returning Citizens Coordination Act, which would require the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to provide information to the District of Columbia government on individuals convicted of felonies under D.C. law in BOP custody. Currently, BOP provides no information to D.C. on these individuals, even immediately before release, which inhibits reentry, increases recidivism and harms public safety. Last Congress, the Committee on Oversight and Reform passed this bill. Federal law requires BOP to incarcerate individuals convicted of felonies under D.C. law. There are currently 3,200 such individuals in BOP custody, and they are located in prisons throughout the United States. This unique custody arrangement creates several obstacles to successful reentry, including information sharing among agencies. BOP asserts that federal privacy laws prohibit it from providing any information to D.C. on these individuals, which prevents D.C. from having services ready for them when they return from prison. Yet, studies consistently show the importance of health care, housing, education, job training and substance use disorder treatment for successful reentry. This bill would require BOP to provide D.C. 2 types of information on each individual convicted of a D.C. Code felony in BOP custody. Every 90 days, BOP would provide the name, age, Federal Register Number, facility where housed and the scheduled release date. Upon D.C.'s request, BOP would provide D.C. the same information that BOP provides to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA) on these individuals, such as their release plan. CSOSA is a federal agency that supervises individuals convicted of D.C. Code felonies on supervised release and parole. D.C. would be allowed to provide the biographical information only to counsel for the individuals, and to organizations that provide legal representation to individuals in criminal or post-conviction matters, or in matters related to reentry. D.C. would not be allowed to provide any of the other information, and D.C. law enforcement agencies would not have access to any of the information. The overwhelming majority of people in prison return home. I hope everyone agrees on the importance of successful reentry. I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, March 14th is Equal Pay Day, marking the number of additional days a woman must work to earn what a man earned the prior year. The 1963 Equal Pay Act (EPA), the first of the great civil rights statutes of the 1960s, has grown creaky with age and needs updating to reflect the new workforce, in which women work as much as men. What may be the best case for a stronger and updated EPA occurred in Congress in 2003, when female custodians in the House and Senate won an EPA case after showing that female workers were paid a dollar less per hour for doing the same or similar work as male workers. Had those women not been represented by their union, they would have had an almost impossible task in using the rules for bringing and sustaining an EPA class action lawsuit. My own experience as the first woman to chair the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission afforded me the opportunity to enforce the EPA. However, if women are to get equal pay, they need the Fair Pay Act (FPA). I again introduce this bill on behalf of the average female worker, who is often first steered to, and then locked into, jobs with wages that are deeply influenced by the gender of individuals who have traditionally held such jobs. Much of the wage inequality women experience today is because of employer-steering and deeply rooted wage stereotypes, which result in wages paid according to gender and not according to the skill necessary to do the job. I introduce the FPA because the pay disparity most women face today stems mainly from the segregation of women and men in different jobs and paying women in female-dominated jobs systematically less. Almost half of American women work in just three areas: sales/clerical, service and factories. We need more aggressive strategies to break through the societal barriers present throughout history the world over, as well as employer-steering based on gender, which is as old as paid employment itself. The FPA would require that if men and women are doing comparable work, they must be paid comparable wages. If a woman, for example, is an emergency services operator, a female-dominated profession, she should not be paid less than a fire dispatcher, a male-dominated profession, simply because each of these jobs has been dominated by one gender. If a woman is a social worker, a traditionally female occupation, she should not earn less than a probation officer, a traditionally male job, simply because of the gender associated with each of these jobs. The FPA would not tamper with the legal burden. Under the FPA, as under the EPA, the burden would be on the plaintiff to prove discrimination. The plaintiff must show that the reason for the disparate treatment is gender discrimination, not legitimate market factors. Remedies to achieve comparable pay for men and women are not radical or unprecedented. State governments, in red and blue states alike, have shown that it is possible to eliminate the part of the pay gap that is due to job-steering. Many state governments have adjusted wages for female-dominated professions, raising pay for teachers, nurses, clerical workers, librarians and other female-dominated jobs that paid less than comparable male-dominated jobs. Minnesota, for example, implemented a pay equity plan when it found that traditionally female jobs paid 20 percent less than comparable traditionally male jobs. There may well be some portion of the gender wage gap that is traceable to market factors, but states have shown that you can tackle the gender discrimination-based wage gap without interfering in the market system. States generally have closed the wage gap over a period of four to five years at a one-time cost of no more than three to four percent of payroll. In addition, many female workers achieve pay equity through collective bargaining, and countless employers provide it on their own as they see women shifting out of vital female-dominated occupations as a result of the shortage of skilled workers, as well as because of the unfairness to women. Unequal pay has been built into the way women have been treated since Adam and Eve. To dislodge such deep-seated and pervasive treatment, we must go to the source, the traditionally female occupations, where pay is linked with gender and always has been. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Pay Equity for All Act of 2023, which would help reduce the gender and racial pay gap by prohibiting employers from asking job applicants for their salary history before making a job or salary offer. Even though many employers may not intentionally discriminate against applicants or employees based on gender, race or ethnicity, setting wages based on salary history can reinforce the wage gap. Members of historically disadvantaged groups often start their careers with unfair and artificially low wages compared to their white male counterparts, and the disparities are compounded from job to job throughout their careers. In the last two Congresses, the House has passed this bill as part of the Paycheck Fairness Act. This bill would help ensure that salaries are based on skills and merit, not on salary history, by assessing penalties against employers that ask applicants for their salary history during the interview process or as a condition of employment. It would also provide job applicants and employees with a private right of action against employers that violate these provisions. There is much work to be done to address the wage gap. This bill would be an important step in reducing the wage gap. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Salary Transparency Act, which would require employers to provide the salary range for jobs in advertisements and interviews and to existing employees. Several states have enacted laws relating to salary range disclosure, and the federal government should follow their lead and make this a nationwide requirement. Salary transparency is an important tool to combat the gender and race wage gap. Salary secrecy facilitates both intentional and unintentional pay discrimination and perpetuates the wage gap. Studies have consistently shown that when women negotiate for their salaries, they negotiate for less than similarly situated men. Frequently, this is because the salary they request is a certain percentage higher than their current salary. Because women on average make less than men, this practice perpetuates the wage gap. The same is true for people of color, who earn less on average than their white counterparts. Requiring employers to disclose the salary range for a position will help eliminate this harmful portion of the negotiation and lead to a reduction in the wage gap for women and minorities. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a resolution to amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to require every Member, officer and employee of the House of Representatives to receive medical emergency preparedness training, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and the use of an automated external defibrillator (AED). Requiring all Members and staff to be trained in medical emergency preparedness would help ensure that care is immediately available to those in the Capitol Complex experiencing a medical emergency. Individuals trained in medical emergency preparedness can provide vital care during medical emergencies. When Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was wounded during a 2011 mass shooting, Daniel Hernandez Jr., her 20-year-old college intern, provided Giffords with lifesaving CPR. When responding to a medical emergency, every second counts. For example, immediate CPR and the use of an AED can make a critical difference for those experiencing cardiac arrest. CPR can double or triple the chance of surviving a cardiac arrest, and the survival rate of cardiac arrest decreases by ten percent for every minute that defibrillation is delayed. Millions of Americans saw the value of CPR and the use of an AED during the Buffalo Bills football game on January 2, 2023, when Bills player Damar Hamlin suffered cardiac arrest during the game. Team personnel performed CPR and used an AED on Hamlin, likely saving his life. Staff from the Office of the Attending Physician and Capitol Police officers, while trained in medical emergency intervention, are not always immediately available in a medical emergency. Widespread training in CPR and the use of AEDs can help save lives during medical emergencies in the Capitol Complex. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board Inspector General Act of 2023, which would create an independent Inspector General (IG) for the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB). The FRTIB administers the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), the retirement savings and investment plan for federal employees. On June 1, 2022, the FRTIB launched a new system with the goal of modernizing TSP's recordkeeping, improving customer service and bolstering cybersecurity. There have been widespread problems with the new system, including account access, account balances, missing or incomplete information in accounts and hours-long wait times to reach customer service. While many problems have been fixed, problems remain. As of December 2022, TSP had approximately 6.8 million participants and $765,154,000,000 in assets, making it the world's largest defined contribution plan. Federal employees dedicate their careers to serving our country, and they deserve a retirement savings and investment plan that provides top-tier customer support and security. While the Employee Benefits Security Administration has oversight responsibility for TSP, as it does for private sector 401(k) plans, there is currently no IG for the FRTIB. The problems with the new TSP system are evidence enough that the FRTIB needs an independent IG. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the closing days of Black History Month to recognize a professional golfer from the District of Columbia. Marcus Byrd picked up his clubs at the First Tee of Greater Washington, D.C. at the historic Langston Golf Course in Northeast, honing his skills there and at a number of golf courses in nearby Prince George's County. He finished in 2nd place at the Maryland State High School Golf Championship in his freshman year. Shortly after, his family moved to Atlanta, Georgia. In 2013, he won the Georgia State Junior Championship and colleges began to take notice. Mr. Byrd earned a college golf scholarship to Middle Tennessee State University and quickly became one of the best players on the team. After a standout college career, Mr. Byrd turned professional in 2020. He is currently competing on the Advocates Professional Golf Association Tour (APGA), which is aimed at increasing diversity in the sport. Mr. Byrd has two wins and five second place finishes on the APGA since 2021. Tiger Woods awarded Mr. Byrd with the Charlie Sifford Memorial Exemption into the PGA Tour's Genesis Invitational in Los Angeles earlier this month. Mr. Byrd received an exemption into the PGA Tour's Honda Classic in Florida last week. While he no longer lives permanently in the District of Columbia, Mr. Byrd returns to the area to make a positive impact on young people. He has given back to the First Tee of Greater Washington, D.C. by participating in multiple Politics and Pros events and by conducting clinics for young participants. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to recognize Marcus Byrd for his success in professional golf.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Reducing Helicopter Noise in the District of Columbia Act, which would require all helicopters and rotocraft in the District of Columbia to fly at the maximum altitude permitted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in D.C., with limited exceptions. The exceptions would include active law enforcement and rescue operations, transporting the president and vice president and safety. I hear from D.C. residents almost daily about helicopter noise. Helicopter noise can harm health, quality of life and the structural integrity of homes. In 2019, I led members of the National Capital Region (NCR) in requesting that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) study helicopter noise in the NCR. Last year, GAO issued its report. GAO found that there had been nearly 90,000 helicopter flights in the NCR from 2017 to 2019. GAO recommended that the FAA develop a mechanism to exchange helicopter noise information with operators in the NCR. The FAA has indicated that it is working on such a mechanism. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce the Albert Pike Statue Removal Act, which would require the permanent removal of the statue of Confederate General Albert Pike from federal land near Judiciary Square in the District of Columbia, which was illegally torn down in 2020 and is in storage. The bill also would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to donate the statue to a museum or similar entity. In the 116th Congress, the House Committee on Natural Resources passed this bill by voice vote. This bill is part of a series of statue and memorial removal bills I am introducing during Black History Month. This statue, which was dedicated in 1901, was constructed using both federal and private funds. The Freemasons, of which Pike was a member, donated the majority of the money needed to build and install the statue. I oppose destroying Confederate statues, because I believe they should be moved to more appropriate settings, like museums, to avoid erasing an important part of history from which Americans must continue to learn. Pike, a Confederate general who served dishonorably and was forced to resign in disgrace, represents the worst of the Confederacy. Soldiers under his command were found to have mutilated the bodies of Union soldiers, and he was ultimately imprisoned after his fellow Confederate officers reported that he had been misappropriating funds. Adding to the dishonor of taking up arms against the United States, Pike dishonored even his Confederate military service. He certainly has absolutely no claim to be memorialized in the Nation's capital. Even those who do not want Confederate statues removed will have to justify affording Pike any honor considering his dishonorable history. After meeting with the Freemasons, I believe the best course of action is to remove the statue and find a more appropriate place for it. Given the statue's divisive nature, the Freemasons themselves support the statue's removal. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce the Francis G. Newlands Memorial Removal Act, which would remove the plaque and inscriptions on a fountain bearing Francis G. Newlands' name from Chevy Chase Circle, a federal park located both in the District of Columbia and Maryland. I am pleased Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland joins me in introducing this bill. This bill is part of a series of statue and memorial removal bills I am introducing during Black History Month. Newlands was a U.S. senator from Nevada, a conservationist and the founder of the Chevy Chase Land Company, which developed the Chevy Chase neighborhood that touches D.C. and Maryland. Newlands was also a segregationist. He built Connecticut Avenue and ran a streetcar up the road to the newly built Chevy Chase Lake. However, homes on Connecticut Avenue were purposely priced to keep working families out, and covenants were later added to many of the property deeds in Chevy Chase explicitly prohibiting the land from ever being owned by African Americans or Jews. These covenants have since been declared void. Newlands went further to keep Black and white Americans separate. In the late 1800s, he and Senator William Stewart secured 2,000 acres of land for Rock Creek Park. Establishing this park not only increased property values for landowners like Newlands and Stewart, but also kept white communities distinct from emerging Black communities on what they called the ``wrong side of the park.'' Newlands' racist views went even further. In 1912, he called for the repeal of the 15th amendment, which gave African American men the right to vote. The fountain in Chevy Chase Circle was established in 1932 by Congress. In 1990, the Chevy Chase Land Company added a plaque with Newlands' name next to the fountain. A resolution to remove Newlands' name from the fountain was first introduced by the D.C. Chevy Chase Advisory Neighborhood Commission in 2014. On July 27, 2020, the commission voted unanimously to ask the National Park Service to remove the plaque bearing Newlands' name and to begin discussion on a new name for the fountain. On September 14, 2020, the Maryland Chevy Chase Village Board of Managers adopted a resolution calling on NPS and Congress to strip any mention of Newlands from the fountain. And on April 19, 2022, Montgomery County Council introduced a resolution affirming the county's support for this bill. I believe NPS has the administrative authority to remove Newlands' name from the fountain, given that the memorial's authorizing statue does not name Senator Newlands nor dedicate the memorial to him. Last Congress, I wrote a letter with Representative Jamie Raskin and Senators Chris Van Hollen and Ben Cardin urging NPS to use their existing authority to remove or conceal Newlands' name, and they have not done so. This bill would remove Newlands' name from the fountain and remove the plaque entirely. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this profoundly undemocratic, paternalistic resolution. The House of Representatives, in which nearly 700,000 District of Columbia residents have no voting representation, is attempting to nullify legislation enacted by D.C.'s local legislature, whose members are elected by D.C. residents. By scheduling this vote, I can only conclude that the Republican leadership believes that D.C. residents, a majority of whom are Black and Brown, are either unworthy or incapable of governing themselves. The dictionary defines democracy as ``a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.'' D.C.'s lack of voting representation in Congress and Congress' plenary authority over D.C. are the antithesis of democracy. I remind House Republicans that they once professed support for local control of local affairs. Their fiscal year 2016 budget said this: ``America is a diverse Nation. Our cities, States, and local communities are best equipped and naturally inclined to develop solutions that will serve their populations, but far too often local leaders are limited by numerous Federal dictates.'' The legislative history and merits of the legislation enacted by the District of Columbia that are the subject of this resolution are irrelevant to the consideration of this resolution, since there is never justification for Congress nullifying legislation enacted by the District, but I would like to set the record straight. The Revised Criminal Code Act comprehensively revises D.C.'s criminal code, which has not been done since it was created in 1901. Everyone in the D.C. legal system agrees that such a revision is long overdue. The bill is the product of over a decade of work by D.C. to create a modern, comprehensive, systematic criminal code. A majority of States, both red and blue, have adopted such a code. In 2016, D.C. enacted legislation establishing an independent agency, the Criminal Code Reform Commission, to recommend a new criminal code. The Commission, which consisted of nonpartisan experts, drafted the Revised Criminal Code Act over nearly 5 years in a fully public process. The voting members of the Commission's advisory group, including the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, unanimously approved transmitting the bill to the D.C. Council and the Mayor. The D.C. Council held three hearings on this bill. The council, as required by Congress, passed the bill on two separate occasions by votes of 12-0 and 13-0. The Mayor vetoed the bill. The council overrode the veto by a vote of 12-1. The provisions of the bill do not take effect until October 1, 2025, at the earliest. I say to every Member of Congress: Keep your hands off D.C. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no.''

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about crime in D.C., so I think it is fair to ask: How do the Revised Criminal Code Act penalties compare to the penalties in the States, the States represented in this House? I will cite a few examples from Kentucky, Chairman Comer's home State. The Revised Criminal Code Act has a higher mandatory minimum penalty for murder one than Kentucky. The Revised Criminal Code Act has a higher maximum penalty for involuntary manslaughter and unarmed robbery than Kentucky. How about armed and unarmed carjacking? The Revised Criminal Code Act has specific armed and unarmed carjacking crimes. Kentucky does not. The Revised Criminal Code Act maximum penalty for armed carjacking is higher than for first degree robbery in Kentucky. The Revised Criminal Code Act maximum penalty for unarmed carjacking is higher than for unarmed robbery in Kentucky. How about felony murder? The Revised Criminal Code Act has a maximum sentence of 20 years with a maximum of 30 years for aggravating factors. Kentucky abolished felony murder.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from more than 100 groups led by D.C. Vote calling on Congress to keep its hands off of D.C. February 7, 2023. Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer, Washington, DC. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Washington, DC. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Washington, DC. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Washington, DC. Dear Congressional Leadership: Congress Should Stay Out of the District of Columbia's Local Affairs We, the undersigned organizations, representing millions of Americans from across the country, are concerned about the numerous measures that have been introduced that will unjustly undermine critical local decisions made by the people of the District of Columbia and their elected leadership. These local laws were enacted to address important local concerns, most notably criminal justice reform, reproductive freedom, democracy and equal treatment under the law. Efforts by members of Congress to impose legislative ``riders'' or pass disapproval resolutions usurp the prerogative of the District of Columbia's elected mayor and council and the residents they represent. We also urge Congress to refrain from taking action that could threaten the District's Local Budget Autonomy Act. The Act allows the District to spend local tax dollars based on its local budget at the beginning of the new fiscal year. The DC Superior Court has ruled the Act is valid, and the DC Council and mayor are proceeding with the District's local budget in accordance with the law. We understand that some in Congress are still seeking to use the legislative process to impose policy riders upon the people of the District. The undersigned organizations advocate on diverse issues and are united in our opposition to the inclusion of any legislative vehicle that overrides, limits or otherwise usurps locally elected decision-making by the District of Columbia. Already, in just the first month of the new Congress, legislators have promised or introduced measures that takes away the fundamental right to self-governance from the people of Washington, DC. Congressional interference in these local matters is unfair and intolerable. Right now, Americans are debating important issues in communities throughout this country. But what is not up for debate is who gets to decide these questions. DC's locally- elected leadership should decide what is best for the people of the District of Columbia. The Mayor of the District of Columbia and the DC Council were elected by DC residents to represent their interests. Congress does not impose its views on any other local jurisdiction, and Americans in DC have no vote in the Congress to cast against this egregious and increasingly relentless attack on their local democracy. We expect Congress to be consistent by letting District residents manage their own affairs without interference or meddling. We urge you to respect local autonomy and oppose any efforts that seek to force Congress' views upon DC residents. Sincerely, DC Vote; 51 for 51; ACLU; ACLU of DC; All Souls Church Unitarian; American Family Voices; American Federation of Government Employees; Anacostia Coordinating Council; Bend the Arc: Jewish Action; Better Organizing to Win Legalization; Black Voters Matter Fund; Blue Future; Capital Stonewell Democrats; Center for Common Ground; Center for Popular Democracy; Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW); Clean Elections Texas; Clean Water Action; Coalition on Human Needs; Common Cause; Common Defense; D.C. Affairs Community of the District of Columbia Bar *; DC Committee to Build a Better Restaurant Industry; DC Democratic State Committee; DC Development Disabilities Council. DC Environmental Network; DC Fiscal Policy Institute; DC for Democracy; DC Jobs With Justice; DC League of Women Voters; DC Marijuana Justice; DC Statehood Coalition; DC Statehood Green Party; Death with Dignity; Defending Rights & Dissent; Democracy for America Advocacy Fund; Democratic Messaging Project; Drug Policy Alliance; East Area Progressive Democrats (EAPD); Economic Policy Institute; End Citizens United//Let America Vote Action Fund; FairVote; Family Values @ Work; Federation of Community Associations; Friends of the Earth U.S.; GLAA; GLSEN; Greenspeace USA. Harriet's Wildest Dreams; Health in Justice Action Lab, Northeastern University HIPS; Human Rights Campaign; In Our Own Voice; Indivisible; Indivisible Chicago Alliance; Indivisible Marin; Indivisible MN03; Indivisible Northern Nevada; Indivisible Santa Fe; Jean-Michel Cousteau's Ocean Futures Society; Justice Policy Institute; Lake Research Partners; Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG); League of Conservation Voters; League of Women Voters of the United States; Legacy DC; LONG LIVE GOGO; Love Huntsville; Metro Washington Council, AFL-CIO; More Than Our Crimes; National Center for Lesbian Rights; National Center for Transgender Equality; National Council of Jewish Women; National Disability Rights Network (NDRN); National Employment Law Project; National Immigration Law Center. National Organization for Women; National Partnership for Women & Families; National Women's Law Center; Neighbors United for DC Statehood; Netroots Nation; NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice; Northridge Indivisible; Oregonizers; Our Revolution; Peace Action; People For the American Way; Physicians for Reproductive Health; Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, DC; Plymouth Area Indivisible; Progressive Democrats Of America; Public Citizen; Public Justice Center; Rachel Carson Council; SEIU; SEIU 32BJ; Sojourners; SPACES In Action; Stand Up America. Statehood4DC; Take on Wall Street, a project of Americans for Financial Reform; The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; The Workers Circle; United Church of Christ, Justice and Local Church Ministries; United Democratic Women; United Nations Association of National Capital Area; Venice Resistance; Veterans United for DC Statehood; Voices for Progress; Voto Latino; Washington AIDS Partnership; Washington Parks & People; Washington, D.C. Lawyer Chapter of the American Constitution Society; Who Speaks For Me; Women's Bar Assocation of the District of Columbia. * The views expressed herein are presented on behalf of the D.C. Affairs Community, a voluntary association of individuals, most but not necessarily all of whom are members of the D.C. Bar. The D.C. Bar itself made no monetary contribution to fund the preparation or submission of this statement. Moreover, the views expressed herein have been neither approved nor endorsed by the D.C. Bar, its Board of Governors, or its general membership.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to cite examples of increased maximum penalties in D.C. You can't call D.C. soft on crime. For example, nonconsensual sexual conduct, which is the most commonly charged sex event, current maximum, 6 months. New maximum, 2 years. Attempted murder, current maximum, 5 years. New maximum, 23.5 years. Attempted sexual assault, current maximum, 5 years. New maximum, 15 years. Threats to do bodily harm, current maximum, 6 months. New maximum, 2 years. Possession of a machine gun, sawed-off gun, or ghost gun, current maximum, 1 year. New maximum, 4 years. It increases the maximum penalties for misdemeanor and felony assault on a police officer. I would like to cite examples of new crimes. Negligent homicide, maximum penalty is 4 years. The current law does not criminalize negligently causing the death of another, except by operating a vehicle. Reckless endangerment with a firearm. The maximum penalty is 2 years for firing a gun in public, even if the gun is not aimed at anyone or any property. I urge the Members to look at how the D.C. Council has enhanced penalties, not reduced them, making this city safer for everyone.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce the Andrew Jackson Statue Removal Act, which would remove the Andrew Jackson statue from Lafayette Park, a federal park in the District of Columbia, and require the Secretary of the Interior to donate the statue to a museum or similar entity. This bill is part of a series of statue and memorial removal bills I am introducing during Black History Month. The land that comprises Lafayette Park has been used as a racetrack, a showplace for caged animals, a graveyard, a market where enslaved people were sold, an encampment for soldiers and for political protests and celebrations. Jackson was an enslaver and signed a law that forced Native Americans to move west of the Mississippi River. During this forced expulsion by the federal government, roughly 4,000 Cherokee died in what is now known as the Trail of Tears. The statue, the first in Lafayette Park, was dedicated on January 8, 1853, on the 38th anniversary of the Battle of New Orleans, which the statue depicts. This prominent location in the Nation's capital, right outside of the White House, should never have honored a man who was an unabashed racist, owned enslaved people and authorized the genocide of Native Americans. Jackson's entire tenure is a shameful part of our history and should not be honored with a statue in Lafayette Park. This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to ensure the removal of the statue from Lafayette Park and to donate the statue and marble base to a museum or similar entity so that the statue can be accompanied by the appropriate historical context. The next generation can learn from this painful chapter in our history without celebrating it. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I strongly oppose this undemocratic, paternalistic resolution. There is only one question before this House. The question is: Do you believe in democracy? More specifically: Should the District of Columbia's local legislature, whose members are elected by D.C. residents, make the laws for D.C., or should Congress, whose voting Members are elected by the residents of the several States, make laws for D.C.? What is democracy? The dictionary defines it as a ``government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.'' Perhaps President Lincoln described democracy best in the Gettysburg Address when he said that it is government of the people, by the people, for the people. D.C.'s local legislature, the D.C. Council, has 13 members. The members are elected by D.C. residents. Eight members are elected by geographical area, and five members are elected at-large. If D.C. residents do not like how the members vote, then they can vote them out of office. Congress has 535 voting Members. The Members are elected by residents of the several States. None are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how the Members vote, even on legislation that applies only to D.C., they can only ask politely for the residents of the several States to vote them out of office. The Revolutionary War was fought to give consent to the governed and to end taxation without representation. Yet, the nearly 700,000 D.C. residents cannot consent to any action taken by Congress, whether on national or D.C. matters, and they pay full Federal taxes. Indeed, D.C. residents pay more Federal taxes per capita than any State in the Union and more total Federal taxes than 23 States. The legislative history and merits of this legislation enacted by the D.C. Council that is the subject matter of this resolution are irrelevant to the question before the House, but I do want to set the record straight. The D.C. Council passed the legislation on two separate occasions, as required by Congress, by votes of 12-1 and 12-0 after holding a hearing. The legislation is not unprecedented. Indeed, there is a long history in the United States of noncitizens being allowed to vote in local, State, territorial, and Federal elections. I will close with two final thoughts. D.C. residents, a majority of whom are Black and Brown, are worthy and capable of governing themselves. It is true Congress has absolute power over D.C., but might does not make right. Mr. Speaker, if you believe in democracy, you will vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding the time because I have something important to say and to put into the Record. Forty States have permitted noncitizens to vote at various points. One of them is the State of the gentlewoman who has just spoken, Colorado. The other States are: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington State, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. At least 14 municipalities permit noncitizens to vote today. Eleven in Maryland: Barnesville, Cheverly, Chevy Chase section 3, Garrett Park, Glen Echo, Hyattsville, Martin's Additions, Mount Rainier, Riverdale Park, Somerset, and Takoma Park. Two in Vermont: Montpelier and Winooski. One in California. San Francisco allows voting for noncitizens who are a parent or legal guardian of a child living in San Francisco to vote in local school board elections.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the United States Colored Troops Congressional Gold Medal Act, which would award the Congressional Gold Medal to the African Americans who served with Union forces during the Civil War. Approximately 200,000 African American men served in the Union Army and 19,000 African American men served in the Union Navy. I am proud to present this overdue expression of our national appreciation for these remarkable individuals. Senator Cory Booker has introduced the companion bill. Since the colonial era, African Americans have served the United States in times of war. While African American men served in the Navy since its establishment, there was resistance to enlisting them to take up arms for the Union Army at the start of the Civil War. It was not until January 1, 1863, when President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, that the Union Army was ordered to receive African American men. On May 22, 1863, the United States War Department issued General Order Number 143, which established the Bureau of Colored Troops for the recruitment and organization of regiments of the Union Army composed of African American men, called the United States Colored Troops (USCT). Leaders such as Frederick Douglass encouraged African Americans to enlist to advance the cause of citizenship: ``Once let the [B]lack man get upon his person the brass letter, `U.S.', let him get an eagle on his button, and a musket on his shoulder and bullets in his pocket, there is no power on [E]arth that can deny that he has earned the right to citizenship,'' wrote Douglass. African American sailors constituted a significant segment of the Union Navy, making up 20 percent of the Navy's total enlisted force. Although there were rank restrictions on African Americans in the Navy before the Civil War, this policy changed after the establishment of the USCT, when the Union Navy started to compete with the Union Army for enlistment of African Americans. Yet, in practice, most African Americans could not advance beyond the lowest ranks of ``boy'' and ``landsman.'' In the Union Army, the USCT fought at Milliken's Bend, Louisiana; in Petersburg, Virginia; and in Nashville, Tennessee, among other sites. The USCT at first were paid less, were given used uniforms and poor equipment and could never become officers. Many USCT were assigned as guards on fortifications throughout the Union, including the Defenses of Washington, which, by 1865, was one of the most heavily fortified cities in the world. During the Civil War, African American women were not allowed to formally enlist as soldiers or sailors, though they served as nurses, cooks, spies and scouts for the Union Army and the Union Navy. For generations after the Civil War, the contributions of the African Americans who served with Union forces were excluded from historical memory. Not until Public Law No. 102-412, which I sponsored and which authorized the establishment of a memorial on federal land to honor African Americans who served with Union forces during the Civil War, were they officially commemorated. The African American Civil War Memorial, located in the District of Columbia, features a bronze statue of soldiers, an African American sailor and family, and is surrounded by The Wall of Freedom, which lists the names of the members of the USCT. Patriots and heroes who rose in service to a nation that would not fully recognize them, the African Americans who served the Union during the Civil War deserve our recognition for their contributions to the grant of emancipation and citizenship for nearly 4 million enslaved people and to the preservation of the Union. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I strongly oppose this rule. This rule would allow the House to consider two resolutions that would nullify two bills recently enacted by the District of Columbia's local legislature, the D.C. Council. These are profoundly undemocratic, paternalistic resolutions. The House, in which the nearly 700,000 D.C. residents have no voting representation, is attempting to nullify a bill enacted by the D.C. Council, whose members are elected by and accountable to D.C. residents. What is democracy? The dictionary defines it as a ``government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.'' Perhaps President Lincoln described democracy best in the Gettysburg Address as ``government of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' The D.C. Council has 13 members. The members are elected by D.C. residents. Eight members are elected by geographical area and five members are elected at-large. If D.C. residents do not like how the members vote, they can vote them out of office. Congress has 535 Members. The Members are elected by residents of the several States. None are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how Members vote, even on legislation that applies to the District of Columbia, such as the two disapproval resolutions, they can ask politely for residents of the several States to vote Members out of office. 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 D.C. matters, and pay full Federal taxes. Indeed, D.C. residents pay more Federal taxes per capita than any State and more Federal taxes than 23 States. Instead of abusing its power by nullifying legislation enacted by the D.C. Council, the House should adhere to democratic principles and pass my D.C. statehood bill, which would give D.C. residents voting representation in Congress and full control over its local affairs. I will have more to say on these undemocratic, paternalistic resolutions during floor debate on them on Thursday; but I will say to all Members of the House now: Keep your hands off of the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I, along with Representative Donald S. Beyer, Jr., introduce the Federal Police Camera and Accountability Act of 2023. This bill would require uniformed federal law enforcement officers to wear body cameras and marked federal law enforcement vehicles to have dashboard cameras. It would also require the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study on federal law enforcement officers' training, vehicle pursuits, use of force and interaction with citizens. In the last two Congresses, we introduced virtually identical bills, which were included in the House-passed George Floyd Justice in Policing Act both Congresses. After the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, the urgency of this bill has become even more apparent. The U.S. Capitol Police tried to stop the mob attack, but since Capitol Police officers do not wear body cameras, we have been forced to rely on social media, cameras in and around the Capitol, body cameras worn by Metropolitan Police Department officers and public reporting to learn what happened. The events at Lafayette Square in 2020, where U.S. Park Police and other federal police officers forcibly removed peaceful protestors so the president could hold a photo op, is another recent example of why our bill is needed. We first introduced this bill after Bijan Ghaisar was fatally shot on November 17, 2017, in his car by uniformed U.S. Park Police officers in Fairfax County, Virginia, after a vehicle pursuit on the George Washington Memorial Parkway. Video of this shooting only became available through a camera in a Fairfax County Police Department patrol car that was providing backup. Had it not been for that footage, which was recorded and released by that local police department, the public would not have had access to the circumstances surrounding Mr. Ghaisar's death. Moreover, the footage revealed concerns about the Park Police's pursuit and engagement policies. Body and dashboard cameras for federal law enforcement officers are particularly important for the officers stationed in the nation's capital, where the Park Police and the uniformed division of the U.S. Secret Service have full local police powers. Many other federal law enforcement agencies also have local police powers near their respective agency buildings in the District of Columbia. Cameras can increase transparency for individual interactions with police, strengthen public trust and even deter future criminal behavior. For example, when individuals know that they are being recorded by a dashboard camera, they may be less likely to flee the scene of a traffic accident because they realize that their license plate will be documented. Individuals may also be less likely to attack an officer because the recording may be used as evidence. On the other hand, officers will also be less likely to commit offenses for the same reason. Body and dashboard cameras can also be used to train current and future officers more effectively in best and worst practices. An increasing number of local police departments, including the Metropolitan Police Department in the District, are using body and dashboard cameras. It is clear that both law enforcement and the public would benefit from federal police departments following suit to increase transparency and maintain public trust. Last year, President Biden issued an executive order (E.O.) requiring federal law enforcement agencies use body cameras, adopt and publicly post body camera policies and expedite release of video footage to the public following incidents involving serious bodily injury or deaths while an individual is in custody. This is a positive first step. Our bill is necessary, however, because the E.O. is more limited in scope than the bill, including that the E.O. does not require dashboard cameras and the U.S. Capitol Police and Supreme Court Police are not required to use any cameras. Additionally, the executive order can be undone by a future president, whereas this bill would enshrine these rules into law, requiring a future Congress and president acting together through subsequent legislation to overturn them. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.