[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 10, 2021)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E221]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        INTRODUCTION OF THE WASHINGTON CHANNEL PUBLIC ACCESS ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 10, 2021

  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I rise to introduce the Washington 
Channel Public Access Act. This bill would prohibit the Secretary of 
the Army from finalizing, implementing or enforcing a proposed rule, or 
any other rule, that would restrict access to the Washington Channel 
(Channel) in the District of Columbia. The proposed rule is arbitrary, 
capricious and unnecessarily restricts recreational and commercial 
access to the Channel without providing any security benefits.
  The proposed rule would establish a permanent restricted area in the 
Channel adjacent to Fort McNair, which would restrict access to the 
navigable portion of the Channel by narrowing the waterway where 
recreational and commercial vessels can traverse and prohibiting 
anchoring and mooring altogether. The U.S. Army Military District of 
Washington cites security needs at Fort McNair to justify the proposed 
rule.
  Neighborhoods like the Navy Yard and the Wharf have reinvigorated 
community engagement on the waterfront, and the Channel is increasingly 
used for regional transportation and recreation. The stretch of the 
Channel past Fort McNair is the only connection to the Potomac River. 
The proposed rule would likely force kayaks, paddleboards and 
recreational boats into the same space as water taxis and river cruise 
ships, creating a potentially dangerous situation.
  I hosted a public meeting in which community members expressed 
overwhelming opposition to the proposed rule, but military officials 
did not address the question of whether less restrictive measures could 
provide the same security. I then wrote asking Secretary of Defense 
Lloyd Austin to direct the U.S. Army Military District of Washington 
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to withdraw the proposed rule and 
to prohibit these agencies from proposing a similar rule. In response, 
the U.S. Army indicated that the proposed rule will not be finalized 
until an appointee of President Biden can review it. Despite this 
positive response, this bill is necessary to ensure the proposed rule, 
or any other rule that would restrict public access, does not go into 
effect.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

                          ____________________