Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, as this year's Black History Month ends, I rise today to honor two District of Columbia residents who have made tremendous contributions to civil rights, Walter Fauntroy and Robin Williams. Walter Fauntroy served as a key organizer alongside Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., helping to organize the Selma to Montgomery marches of 1965. Walter was also a noted lobbyist for civil rights, where he played a pivotal role in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Walter's efforts during this critical period were key to ushering in a new era of progress and possibility for all Americans. Walter was also the second Delegate to the House of Representatives from the District of Columbia, a position he held for almost 20 years. During his tenure in Congress, Walter was a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus and a champion for D.C. home rule. Robin Williams is an associate director at the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and a member of the National Board of Directors of the NAACP. Robin joined UFCW as an employee at the Georgetown Safeway in 1986 and was elected International Vice President in 2015. As a labor organizer, Robin was a lead coordinator for the ``Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride,'' which brought together tens of thousands of immigrant workers and immigrant rights activists for a tour throughout the United States to demand respect for immigrant workers' rights. Robin also serves as an Executive Vice President of the UFCW Minority Coalition and is a trustee on the board of the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists. Robin is also a noted community activist. Some of Robin's local contributions include developing the D.C. Workers' Rights Board and D.C. Jobs With Justice. Robin has been recognized by the AFL-CIO Washington Metropolitan Central Labor Council for her impact on the National Capital Region. Again, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring Walter Fauntroy and Robin Williams.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this bipartisan bill. This bill would allow the District of Columbia to transform the RFK Stadium campus, 174 acres of underutilized Federal land in D.C. that primarily consists of parking lots, sports fields, and a long-vacant stadium in the process of being demolished, into a thriving mixed-use development. The National Capital Planning Commission, the central planning agency for the Federal Government in the District of Columbia, has long called for the revitalization of the campus, and the Department of the Interior testified in support of the goals of this bill. During my tenure, Congress has passed several bipartisan bills to transform underutilized land in D.C. into thriving mixed-use developments, including The Yards on the southeast waterfront and The Wharf on the southwest waterfront. Reservation 13, 67 acres next to the RFK campus, is now being transformed into a mixed-use development. Since 1988, D.C. has leased, without consideration, the RFK Stadium campus from the Department of the Interior. The lease only permits D.C. to use the campus for recreation, a stadium, and open space. The lease expires in 2038. This bill would give D.C. administrative jurisdiction over the campus for at least 99 years and permit D.C. to use the campus for commercial and residential development, recreation, a stadium, parks, and open space. This bill would require D.C. to preserve 30 percent of the campus for parks and open space, and prohibit D.C. from building along the waterfront. This bill is a win-win for the Federal and D.C. Governments. As the Department of the Interior testified, this bill would allow D.C. to transform the campus from ``acres of asphalt to a complex focused on community sports, recreation, park space, and community amenities'' and would ``guarantee public access to a sizable amount of park land and outdoor recreation areas.'' At the same time, this bill would allow D.C. to create a mixed-use development and to generate significant revenue for D.C. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Comer for his leadership and partnership on this bill, and I also thank Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva for their work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the comments from my friend from Maryland. The National Park Service has a maintenance backlog of $23 billion, including $2 billion in the District of Columbia alone. The National Park Service does not have the money to transform the RFK Stadium site from acres of asphalt into parks or mixed uses. There is precedent for Congress giving title to or administration jurisdiction over Federal land to States and other jurisdictions for no consideration. We do not have to look far for examples. Let's look at two of the many examples in D.C. First, section 8124 of title 40 of the U.S. Code has long permitted the Federal Government to transfer administrative jurisdiction over Federal land in D.C. to the D.C. government for no consideration. Second, in 1986, Congress directed the Department of the Interior to enter into a 50-year lease with D.C. for the RFK Stadium site for no consideration. While it is true that H.R. 4984 does not require D.C. to pay the Federal Government for administrative jurisdiction over the RFK Stadium site, it is expected D.C. will spend hundreds of millions of dollars transforming the site from acres of asphalt into mixed-use development. This bill would not require a stadium to be built at the site. Whether to build a stadium would be a decision for the elected D.C. government. Several members of the D.C. Council have expressed opposition to a new football stadium at the site. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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, which would make the District of Columbia eligible for the same federal funding as states under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act. D.C. residents pay full federal taxes and therefore D.C. is treated as a state under federal programs, with limited exceptions, most of them simply oversights or failures to update post-home rule. The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act provides funding, derived from excise taxes on sporting equipment, for five distinct purposes: program administration, wildlife restoration, basic hunter education and safety, enhanced hunter education and safety grants, and multistate conservation grants. D.C. does not receive any 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, states receive a minimum of one percent of the total amount apportioned, while D.C. is capped at one-third of one percent. This omission and lack of parity under these Acts have serious consequences for D.C. D.C. has roughly 7,800 acres of parkland covering nearly a quarter of the city, which means it has more parkland per capita than any other city in the United States. This bill would define ``State'' in these Acts to include D.C., providing D.C. with equal funding for wildlife conservation in our Nation's capital. 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 correct an apparent oversight in the exclusion of the District of Columbia from eligibility for funding under the McIntire-Stennis Act. The Act provides the states and certain territories with formula funding to support state designated institutions' cooperative forestry research programs. The funding available under this Act assists the 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 needed forestry research. District of Columbia residents pay full federal taxes and therefore District of Columbia is treated as a state under federal programs, with limited exceptions. 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 federal 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, today, I introduce the Federal Employee Short-Term Disability Insurance Act of 2024, which would help provide financial relief for federal employees who have a short-term injury or disability, become pregnant or develop a pregnancy-related illness. This bill would offer federal employees short-term disability insurance at no cost to the federal government. Employees would be responsible for 100 percent of the premiums and be able to receive disability insurance benefits for up to one year, which would replace a portion of their lost income due to a nonwork-related injury or illness or pregnancy. This bill is more important now than ever with the prevalence of so-called Long COVID. I decided to investigate how we could provide short-term disability insurance for federal employees after learning that many of them already buy short-term disability insurance as individuals in the private market at high individual rates. Although federal employees have good health insurance, federal health benefits do not replace lost income if employees are unable to work. Moreover, while federal employees may have available sick or annual leave days, they may not have enough such days to pay the bills if they have to be out of work for an extended period, such as following surgery. Although there are long-term disability options for federal employees who become permanently disabled, federal employees do not qualify for such benefits until they have worked for the federal government for at least 18 months. This bill does no more than put federal employees in the same position as many of their private-sector counterparts, who often have access to disability insurance through an employer at group rates, an option unavailable to federal employees. This bill would prohibit participating insurance companies from excluding employees based on preexisting conditions. Because of the federal government's purchasing power, this bill would provide these benefits at a lower rate than is available for employees purchasing as individuals, as many do. Under this bill, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management would contract with private carriers to provide this coverage, essentially providing the equivalent of group coverage available to many workers in the private sector. According to the Social Security Administration, a 20-year-old worker has a one-in-four chance of becoming disabled by retirement age. The majority of disabilities are not caused by major accidents, but by injuries or illnesses, such as back injuries or cancer, according to the Council for Disability Awareness. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Equal Federal Funding for the District of Columbia Act, which would amend title 1 of the United States Code to deem the District of Columbia as both a state and political subdivision of a state (such as a city or county) for the purpose of eligibility for federal funding, unless otherwise provided in a statute. D.C. operates as the functional equivalent of a state, city and county, and D.C. residents pay all federal taxes. Therefore, D.C. deserves to be eligible for federal funding available for each level of government. While federal statutes generally expressly treat D.C. as a state for federal funding--and most federal grants go to states--federal statutes that provide federal funding directly to political subdivisions are often silent on whether D.C. is to be treated as a political subdivision. In the absence of clear language in a statute, federal agencies are inconsistent in their treatment of D.C.'s eligibility for federal funding. By amending title 1 of the U.S. Code to deem D.C. as both a state and political subdivision for federal funding, this bill would automatically correct imprecise treatment of D.C.'s eligibility for federal funding in existing and future statutes and remove discretion from federal agencies in their treatment of D.C.'s eligibility for federal funding. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Reducing the Effects of the Cyberattack on OPM Victims Emergency Response Act of 2024, or the RECOVER Act, which would require the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to make permanent the free identity protection coverage that Congress required OPM to provide at that point for 10 years to individuals whose Social Security Numbers were potentially compromised during the OPM data breaches. In 2015, OPM reported that the personally identifiable information of as many as 25.7 million current, former and prospective federal employees and contractors was stolen in two data breaches. I appreciate that Representative C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger is co-leading this bill. After OPM announced that it would offer identity protection coverage of limited duration and value, Senator Ben Cardin and I introduced the RECOVER Act in July 2015, which would have provided affected individuals lifetime identity protection coverage and at least $5 million in identity theft insurance. Congress subsequently passed a version of our bill as part of an appropriations bill, but limited the duration of the protection. Under current law, OPM is only required to provide identity protection coverage through fiscal year 2026. Under the bill I am introducing today, OPM would be required to provide coverage for the remainder of the lives of affected individuals. The current coverage duration is inadequate, given that there is no limit to when the stolen data may be exploited. Therefore, there should be no limit on the duration of the coverage provided to affected individuals. This bill would give current, former and prospective federal employees and contractors who were affected both some peace of mind and protection. OPM failed to protect these people. It follows that the government must make up for its mistake. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Protecting Homes from Trains Act of 2024, which would establish a grant program for the design and construction of barriers to mitigate rail activity that may harm homes and their occupants, including derailments, noise and vibrations. The Noise Control Act of 1972 created the Office of Noise Abatement and Control within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), granting EPA authority and oversight over noise control regulations. However, years of defunding left this office without any resources to conduct enforcement, forcing EPA to phase out the office in 1982. District of Columbia residents frequently tell me about the negative impact of train noise and vibrations on their lives. The noise and vibrations can harm health and quality of life, and can even harm the structural integrity of homes. Congress and the executive branch must do more to reduce this harm. As a senior member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, I have been working to reduce transportation noise and vibrations. I have convened community meetings with the Federal Railroad Administration, the District of Columbia Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration to examine how to reduce train noise and vibrations. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Universal Prekindergarten and Early Childhood Education Act of 2024, which would establish and expand prekindergarten programs in public and public charter schools for three- and four-year-old children. This bill seeks a breakthrough in public education by providing funding for states to add prekindergarten for children at three and four years of age, like the kindergarten programs for five-year-olds now routinely available in public schools. This bill would eliminate major shortcomings of unevenly available day care and, importantly, would take advantage of the safe facilities required in public schools. This bill would provide federal funds to states, which would be matched by at least 20 percent of a state's own funds, to establish or expand universal, voluntary prekindergarten in public and public charter schools for three- and four-year-olds, regardless of income. The classes, which would be full-day and run throughout the entire school year, would be taught by teachers who possess equivalent or similar qualifications to those teaching other grades in the school. The funds would supplement, not supplant, other federal funds for early childhood education. The unique, money-saving aspect of this bill is that it would use existing public-school infrastructure and trained teachers to make early childhood education available to all, saving billions of dollars in implementation costs. The success of Head Start and other prekindergarten programs, combined with scientific evidence on the importance of brain development in early childhood, virtually mandates the expansion of early childhood education to all children. Early learning programs have been available only to the affluent, who can afford them, and to some low-income families in programs such as Head Start, which would be unaffected by this bill. This bill is a practical way to create universal, public prekindergarten. The goal of this bill is to provide the benefits of early childhood education to those who have been left out of this essential education. We cannot afford to allow the most fertile years for childhood development to pass unenriched. This bill responds both to the great needs of parents who seek early childhood education and neuroscience, which shows that a child's brain development begins much earlier than had been previously understood. Considering the staggering cost of day care, the inaccessibility of early childhood education and the opportunity that early education offers to improve a child's chances of success, schooling for three- and four-year-olds is overdue. The absence of viable options for working families demands our immediate attention. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Superior Court Jury Duty for Seniors Opt Out Act of 2024, which would allow individuals 70 years of age or older to opt out of jury service in D.C.'s local trial court, the Superior Court. Most federal courts allow individuals 70 years of age or older to opt out of jury service, including the federal district court for D.C. A majority of states have similar provisions for their courts. Under the D.C. Home Rule Act, the D.C. Council does not have authority to amend title 11 of the D.C. Code (relating to organization and jurisdiction of the local D.C. courts). This bill would amend title 11. 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. Senator Cory Booker is introducing the companion bill in the Senate. 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. Individuals living in federally assisted housing should not be denied admission, or fear eviction, for using a legal product. Adult-use marijuana, medical marijuana or both are currently legal in 38 states and the District of Columbia, and over 90 percent of Americans support legalized medical marijuana. Under current 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. In 2018, the Food and Drug Administration approved Epidiolex, which is derived from marijuana. Epidiolex is used to treat children who suffer from seizures. Notably, the medicine does not contain tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the psychoactive component in marijuana. 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 law's. 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 prevent jurisdictions from implementing their marijuana laws. Under this bill, HUD must develop regulations that restrict smoking marijuana in federally assisted housing in the same manner and 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 the Flood Prevention Act of 2024. This bill would amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) to include the District of Columbia in the definition of ``coastal state.'' Senator Tom Carpen the Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, is the sponsor of this bill in the Senate. The House passed this bill as part of the Coastal and Great Lakes Communities Enhancement Act in the 116th Congress. This bill would correct an apparent oversight in the omission of D.C. from the CZMA and thereby make D.C. eligible to receive federal funding and have oversight for federally issued permits, facilities and actions that affect its coastal waters. D.C. urgently needs the protection of the CZMA because of serious flood risks that affect federal assets, residents and businesses in D.C., including the National Mall and federal buildings in the Federal Triangle area. The CZMA provides planning and technical services to assist states in protecting, restoring and developing coastal communities and resources. Once the federal government approves a state's coastal management plan, the state becomes eligible for grants. Federal actions must be consistent with the state plans and vice versa. Even though D.C. is located on two rivers, and has suffered substantial coastal floods in the past, it was omitted from the list of eligible entities in the CZMA. It is notable that, under the CZMA, the term ``coastal state[s]'' includes the states and territories. D.C. residents pay full federal taxes and therefore D.C. is usually treated as a state for federal programs. It appears D.C.'s omission was a mistake. This oversight likely occurred because the CZMA was passed in 1972, which was before D.C. achieved home rule. Scientists have predicted that the tides on the Atlantic Coast could rise two to four feet by 2100, causing property worth as much as $7 billion in D.C. to be routinely under threat by floodwaters. This includes private homes and businesses, the National Mall, federal buildings and three military bases. The Anacostia and Potomac rivers, which surround D.C., are tidally influenced, part of an ``intertidal zone'' between high and low tides. In addition, the Maryland and Virginia coastal zones each include the tidal Potomac River, with Maryland's zone ending at the D.C. line. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Richard ``Dick'' Overheim. Dick worked at the U.S Department of Agriculture in the Agricultural Marketing Service for 38 years. He passed away peacefully of natural causes on September 24, 2023, at his residence in the District of Columbia. During the Korean War, Dick served with the 14th Regiment (Golden Dragons) and the 25th Infantry (Tropic Lightning) from 1953 through 1955. He earned the National Defense Service, Good Conduct, United Nations Service and Korean Service Medals. After his military service, Dick used the GI Bill to attend Gannon College (now Gannon University) in Erie, Pennsylvania. Earning his degree in Business and minoring in Marketing, he later earned his master's degree in public and international affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. While at Gannon, he was a member of the Blue Key National Honor Fraternity and Who's Who in American Colleges and Universities, co-editor of the yearbook and recipient of the Wall Street Journal Award for his work in finance. At the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Dick was an agricultural marketing specialist at the Agricultural Marketing Service. Dick's research focused on wholesale marketing facilities and farmers markets. One of Dick's earliest research projects was in Honolulu, Hawaii. His report on the project, ``Wholesale Food Distribution Facilities for Honolulu Hawaii,'' was published in 1968. Dick's report found that Honolulu's wholesale food marketing facilities were ``unsuitable, outdated and inefficient'' for the city's growing population. Dick found these marketing inadequacies affected not only food wholesalers, but also producers, shippers and consumers, Dick's team interviewed food marketers to assess their needs in meeting the demand of Hawaii's growing population for fresh fruits and vegetables, groceries and other food products. Dick was essential in the development of the Maryland Wholesale Produce Market in Jessup, Maryland. Dick kept abreast of the rapid technological improvements in the production, transportation and distribution of food products and the changing food marketing system. Dick's research at the U.S. Department of Agriculture helped keep America's food marketing system operating efficiently. Dick's published reports are important historical documents for researchers studying the changing U.S. food marketing system, city planning and the growth of state and local food marketing authorities. For 38 years, Dick played a kev role in our ever-changing agricultural nrarketing system. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring the incredible life and legacy of Richard ``Dick'' Overheim.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Federal Bureau of Prisons Voting Assistance Act with Congresswoman Chellie Pingree. This bill would require the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to provide incarcerated individuals from jurisdictions that allow such individuals to vote, like the District of Columbia and Maine, information on how to register to vote and request an absentee ballot. BOP would be required to provide each BOP prison information on the criteria for voter registration, instructions on voter registration, voter registration forms and prepaid envelopes for voter registration forms, if provided by the state generally. Each prison would be required to post the information in the facility and give it to each incarcerated individual eligible to vote. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank Norman Gugliotta, a District of Columbia resident who is retiring today after 18 years of outstanding service to the House of Representatives in several administrative and support roles. Norman started as a contractor with the House Child Care Center in 2005 and then worked for various offices of the Chief Administrative Officer, including Payroll & Benefits, Accounting, First Call and the Office of Financial Counseling, where he has been a Financial Counselor since 2007. He provided financial guidance and services to House offices, helping to ensure that their expenditures adhered to applicable House rules and accounting standards. With his knowledge, experience and courteousness, Norman was an invaluable asset to the House and respected by his coworkers and colleagues. Norman is a big fan of the ``Star Wars'' movie franchise. He has participated in conventions, Awesome & Comic Cons, parades and charitable endeavors, including visits to children's hospitals while in Star Wars costumes. In retirement, Norman plans to travel with his partner to help coordinate events for the 501st Legion Star Wars Group and Washington Nationals Star Wars Day. I ask the House to join me in thanking Norman for his distinguished service to the House and the nation it serves. I wish him all the best as he begins this new chapter in his life.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Jury Duty Exemption for Breastfeeding Act of 2023, which would allow breastfeeding individuals summoned for jury service in the federal courts and in 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, in addition to the federal courts, because the D.C. Home Rule Act prohibits the D.C. Council from enacting any law relating to title 11 of the D.C. Code. Title 11 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 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 in the D.C. Home Rule Act that is not only inconsistent with the self-government granted by the Home Rule Act, 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. This bill is an important step to perfect home rule for D.C. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I introduce the District of Columbia Chief Financial Officer Act, which would give the District of Columbia the 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 the authority to set the pay of all its employees. Last 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 has no 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 D.C. CFO was established by Congress in 1995. Congress vested the CFO with extraordinary powers and designed the CFO to be independent of the D.C. Mayor and Council. D.C. cannot obligate or expend funds without the CFO's approval. The CFO manages an approximately $20 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., more than 20 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 authority for D.C. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the No Fencing at the United States Supreme Court Act, which would prohibit the installation of permanent fencing at the U.S. Supreme Court. Earlier this year, I introduced a bill that would prohibit the installation of permanent fencing at the U.S. Capitol complex. After the Supreme Court's draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health was leaked in May 2022, the Supreme Court installed temporary anti-climb fencing around its grounds, which remained in place until late August 2022. While the Supreme Court has not announced plans to install permanent fencing, temporary security measures often become permanent. While I understand the importance of protecting the Supreme Court building, Supreme Court Justices and Supreme Court employees, we can and must maintain our commitment to security without sacrificing public access by using the least restrictive means necessary to address security. Permanent fencing would send an un-American message to the nation and the world by transforming our democracy from one that is accessible and of the people to one that is exclusive and fearful of its own citizens. The Supreme Court has long welcomed First Amendment demonstrations without becoming a fortress. Public property should be open to the public. The distance between government and the people has grown, with trust in government, including the Supreme Court, low. We should not entrench that distance further by placing intimidating barriers between public servants and the people they serve. There are more effective, less obtrusive security solutions than archaic fencing. Moreover, the Supreme Court is in a residential neighborhood in the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court grounds are widely used by both D.C. residents and visitors. Permanent fencing would block that use. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).