[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 18, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-50
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov, oversight.house.gov or docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-736 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Robert Garcia, California, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Gary Palmer, Alabama Ro Khanna, California
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Pete Sessions, Texas Shontel Brown, Ohio
Andy Biggs, Arizona Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Maxwell Frost, Florida
Pat Fallon, Texas Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Byron Donalds, Florida Greg Casar, Texas
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Jasmine Crockett, Texas
William Timmons, South Carolina Emily Randall, Washington
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Yassamin Ansari, Arizona
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Wesley Bell, Missouri
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Lateefah Simon, California
Nick Langworthy, New York Dave Min, California
Eric Burlison, Missouri Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Eli Crane, Arizona Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Brian Jack, Georgia James Walkinshaw, Virginia
John McGuire, Virginia
Brandon Gill, Texas
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
James Rust, Deputy Staff Director
Mitch Benzine, General Counsel
Ryan Giachetti, Deputy General Counsel and Parliamentarian
Alan Brubaker, Senior Advisor
Ashlii Dyer, Senior Counsel
Daniel Falcone, Professional Staff Member
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Robert Edmonson, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. James Comer, U.S. Representative, Chairman.................. 2
Hon. Robert Garcia, U.S. Representative, Ranking Member.......... 3
WITNESSES
The Honorable Murial Bowser, Mayor, District of Columbia
Oral Statement................................................... 6
Mr. Phil Mendelson, Chairman, D.C. City Counsel, District of
Columbia
Oral Statement................................................... 7
The Honorable Brian Schwalb, Attorney General, District of
Columbia
Oral Statement................................................... 9
Mr. Gregory Jackson, Jr. (Minority Witness), Former Deputy
Director, White House, Office of Gun Violence Prevention and
Special Assistant to the President
Oral Statement................................................... 11
Written opening statements and bios are available on the U.S.
House of Representatives Document Repository at:
docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
* Article, Fines and Fees Justice Center, ``A Real Task Force
Can Get DC Moving in the Right Direction''; submitted by Rep.
Perry.
* Traffic Data, MPDC; submitted by Rep. Perry.
* Article, The Washington Post, ``A Congressman Spared Prison
as a Teen Tells DC to be Tough on Youth''; submitted by Rep.
Ansari.
* Article, NPR, ``Criminal Records of Jan. 6 Rioters
Pardoned''; submitted by Rep. Ansari.
* Article, CNN, ``GOP Governors are Sending Troops to DC'';
submitted by Rep. Bell.
* Article, LA Times, ``MAHA Child Health Report Ignores Gun
Violence, the Leading Cause of Child Death''; submitted by Rep.
Bell.
* Article, The Washington Post, ``Trump Administration Cuts
School Mental Health Grants Created After Shootings'';
submitted by Rep. Bell.
* Article, AP News, ``U.S. Attorney Will No Longer Bring Felony
Charges Against People For Carrying Rifles or Shotguns in DC'';
submitted by Rep. Bell.
* Article, Fox News, `` `Radical' DC Officials Treated Officers
`Like Crap,' Police Leader Says''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Article, ABC News, ``Murdered Congressional intern's mom says
Trump should take over Washington, DC''; submitted by Rep.
Biggs.
* Article, Fox News, ``Trump DC Crime Crackdown Busts Another
Alleged Tren De Aragua Gang Member''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Article, Fox News, ``Trump Executive Order Targets DC Crime
As City Hits 12 Days Without Homicide''; submitted by Rep.
Biggs.
* Article, NSSF, ``Yes--Prosecuting & Arresting Criminals Would
Have Immediate Impact on D.C.'s Crime''; submitted by Rep.
Biggs.
* Letter, from Committee to AG-Schwalb re Gun Store Litigation;
submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* Memorandum, Maryland--v--Engage--Armament, Decision and
Order; submitted by Rep. Biggs.
* H.R. 5371 Continuing Resolution; submitted by Rep. Comer.
* Article, Yahoo News, ``Charlie Kirk Suspect's Grandma Says
Family Is All MAGA''; submitted by Rep. Crockett.
* Article, Democracy Docket, `` `I Couldn't Care Less' Trump's
Downplaying of Right-Wing Violence''; submitted by Rep.
Crockett.
* Article, Newsweek, ``Map Shows US Cities Where Homicide Rates
Are Highest''; submitted by Rep. Crockett.
* Article, Third Way, ``The 21st Century Red State Murder
Crisis''; submitted by Rep. Crockett.
* Article, American Prospect, ``The GOP States With Guards
Deployed to DC Have Urban Murder Rates Higher Than DC'';
submitted by Rep. Crockett.
* Article, Time, ``Trump Called for a Crackdown on the `Radical
Left.' But Right-Wing Extremists Are Responsible for More'';
submitted by Rep. Crockett.
* Article, The Washington Post, ``The Good News About Murder'';
submitted by Rep. Frost.
* Post from Phil Mendelson, X; submitted by Rep. Greene.
* Article, USA Today, ``DC National Guard Deployment to Cost
$200M as Soldiers Pick Up Trash, Blow Leaves''; submitted by
Rep. Min.
* Article, WTOP, ``DC Still Waits for Congress to Restore $1
Billion in Funding During Crime Crackdown''; submitted by Rep.
Norton.
* Letter, from Donald Sherman, to Subcommittee in Support of
HRes 115 CREW DC; submitted by Rep. Norton.
* Letter, to Subcommittee in Support of Constitutionality of
Statehood for Washington D.C.; submitted by Rep. Norton.
* Letter, from NUL--GWUL, to Subcommittee in Support of DC;
submitted by Rep. Norton.
* Letter, from DC Vote Coalition, to Subcommittee in Support of
DC Statehood; submitted by Rep. Norton.
* Letter, from Brady, to Subcommittee Opposing Restricting
Autonomy of DC; submitted by Rep. Norton.
* Sign-on Letter, from The Leadership Conference on Civil and
Human Rights, to Subcommittee on DC Policing Takeover;
submitted by Rep. Norton.
* Statement for the Record from Burger; submitted by Rep.
Norton.
* Article, The Hill, ``Most Oppose Trump Deploying National
Guard to DC--Other Cities--Poll''; submitted by Rep. Simon.
* Article, Reuters, ``US Justice Dept Grant Cuts Valued at $811
Million''; submitted by Rep. Simon.
* Article, Vox, ``Laboratories of Democracy Washington, DC
Showed How to do Universal Pre-K Right''; submitted by Rep.
Stansbury.
* Article, ABC News, ``Prosecutors Already Have Dropped Nearly
A Dozen Cases From Trump's DC Crime Surge''; submitted by Rep.
Stansbury.
* Article, The Washington Post, ``We Asked 604 D.C. Residents
About Trump's Takeover. Here's What They Said''; submitted by
Rep. Tlaib.
The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS
* Questions for the Record: Hon. Muriel Bowser; submitted by
Rep. Biggs.
* Questions for the Record: Mr. Phil Mendelson; submitted by
Rep. McGuire.
* Questions for the Record: Attorney General Schwalb; submitted
by Rep. Biggs.
These documents were submitted after the hearing, and may be
available upon request.
OVERSIGHT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2025
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., Room
HVC-210, U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. James Comer,
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Comer, Jordan, Gosar, Foxx,
Grothman, Cloud, Palmer, Higgins, Sessions, Biggs, Mace,
Fallon, Donalds, Perry, Timmons, Burchett, Greene, Boebert,
Luna, Langworthy, Burlison, Crane, Jack, McGuire, Gill, Garcia,
Norton, Lynch, Krishnamoorthi, Khanna, Mfume, Brown, Stansbury,
Frost, Lee, Casar, Crockett, Randall, Subramanyam, Ansari,
Bell, Simon, Min, Walkinshaw, Pressley, and Tlaib.
Chairman Comer. This hearing of the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform will come to order. I want to welcome
everyone here today.
Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any
time.
The first order of business is to welcome our newest Member
to the House Oversight Committee, Representative Walkinshaw of
Virginia, to the Committee. Congressman Walkinshaw has recently
joined the House, taking the seat of our dear friend, the
former Ranking Member, Gerry Connolly. Congressman Walkinshaw
served Mr. Connolly as his chief of staff for ten years, from
2009 to 2019. He then continued his public service as a member
of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, which he served on
from 2020 to 2025.
Gerry Connolly will always be remembered fondly by both
sides of the aisle for his service, and I welcome Congressman
Walkinshaw as he follows those footsteps. Welcome, sir.
I now recognize Ranking Member Garcia for brief remarks on
Walkinshaw.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, also, of course,
want to welcome our new Congressman and, of course, our new
Representative here on Oversight Democrats, but also just for
the people of Virginia. This is someone, of course, that has
got great experience in the Congress, having served as the
chief of staff, of course, to the late Gerry Connolly, and we
welcome him to Oversight and are excited about his work.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Thank you.
Next order of business is ratifying the new Subcommittee
roster. The clerks have distributed the roster electronically.
I ask unanimous consent that the Committee approve the
appointments and assignments as shown on the roster. Without
objection, the Subcommittee roster is approved.
I would also like to congratulate Mayor Bowser and the D.C.
Council on yesterday's passage of the RFK Stadium deal to bring
the Washington Commanders back home to Washington, D.C.
Congratulations. That is a big deal. This historic private
investment will bring crucial jobs and opportunities to the
District. I look forward to working with the District on other
issues moving forward, including the critical crime crisis we
are discussing here today.
I now recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JAMES COMER
REPRESENTATIVE FROM KENTUCKY
Chairman Comer. It has been one week since the conclusion
of President Trump's historic crackdown on crime in our
Nation's capital, and the results are in. Since President Trump
mobilized the National Guard and took control of the
Metropolitan Police Department, violent crime has decreased 39
percent, robberies are down 57 percent, and carjackings are
down 75 percent. Over 2,300 people have been arrested. Nearly
950 illegal aliens have been detained by Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE), including 20 gang members from
violent terrorist organizations. Sex offenders have been taken
off the streets. Major drug trafficking operations have been
foiled. Authorities thwarted a planned school shooting, cleared
50 illegal tent encampments, and rescued seven missing
children. President Trump's operation was a resounding success
and a shining example of how smart-on-crime policies can keep
the residents of and visitors to our Nation's capital safe.
Prior to President Trump's crackdown on crime, Washington,
D.C., was suffering from soaring crime rates as high as the
violent 1990s. According to 2024 data, Washington, D.C., has
the second highest homicide rate, behind only to Detroit among
U.S. cities with under a million people. That rate is also
higher than many capital cities across the globe.
These high crime rates are largely driven by historically
high rates of juvenile crime, which were enabled by ultra-
progressive, soft-on-crime policies enacted by the D.C. Council
and supported by the D.C. Attorney General. In 2018, the D.C.
Council amended the Youth Rehabilitation Amendment Act of 1985,
allowing for adults 24 years of age and under to be prosecuted
as juveniles for many, even violent, crimes, leading to more
lenient sentences. The D.C. Council also passed laws in recent
years that lowered statutory penalties for violent crimes,
eliminated mandatory minimum sentences for all crimes except
first-degree murder, and eliminated life sentences entirely.
The D.C. Council recently passed laws that greatly hampered
the ability of the Metropolitan Police to pursue and apprehend
criminals. Officers cannot execute their duties as effectively,
leaving morale, retention, and recruitment numbers at historic
lows for the Metropolitan Police Department. These actions send
every signal to criminals, especially juveniles, that they can
commit crimes in the District without accountability.
D.C. residents overwhelmingly agree that juveniles who
commit violent crimes should face sentences that are
proportional to their crimes. Yet, the D.C. Attorney General
has far too often declined to prosecute juveniles who commit
these crimes, justifying his dangerous decisions by saying ``We
cannot prosecute our way out of this,'' and that ``kids are
kids.''
Recently, when asked about out-of-control juvenile crime in
D.C. and the Youth Rehabilitation Amendment Act, the D.C.
Attorney General said, and I quote again, ``Our laws are
working, and the prosecution is working.'' Victims of violent
crimes and their families might disagree with that assessment.
Congressional intern Eric Tarpinian-Jachym was viciously
murdered in June while he was simply walking down the street,
an innocent bystander caught in the crossfire. Two 17-year-olds
were finally arrested just the other week for killing Eric,
while a third suspect, an 18-year-old, is still at large. The
U.S. Attorney for D.C. revealed that all three of these vicious
murderers have prior violent juvenile records. Had they been
accountable, Eric's murder might have been prevented.
Members of Congress and staff have been assaulted,
carjacked, and have witnessed violent and traumatic criminal
acts. One Member of Congress was assaulted in her residence.
Another was carjacked at gunpoint. Congressional staff have
been victims of armed robbery and carjackings, threatened at
knifepoint, assaulted at gunpoint while walking home, and
stabbed in the head while leaving dinner. One of my former
professional staff members for the Oversight Committee
personally witnessed not one but two separate murders in the
District during his tenure with us, one at a Navy Yard
restaurant in 2022 and another at a Metro station on his way
into the office in 2023.
The left-wing politicians who say that D.C. does not have a
crime problem are either delusional or simply lying to the
American people. This body must ensure that the progress made
by the President's recent actions endures. That is why last
week, this Committee passed 14 vital pieces of legislation to
restore public safety to the residents and visitors of D.C.
While we urge final passage of these bills, the Committee
also recognizes that the witnesses before us need to do their
part to help ensure D.C. residents and visitors are safe. I
look very forward to hearing from each of our witnesses as to
how they plan to work with Congress and the Trump
Administration to do so.
I now yield to the Ranking Member for his opening remark.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER ROBERT GARCIA
REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Chairman Comer.
Of course, Mayor Bowser, Mr. Chairman, Mr. AG, Mr. Jackson,
thank you all for being here today, and of course, most
importantly, for your service to Washington, D.C., and to the
country.
And I want to start just by setting the record straight.
Washington, D.C., is a great American city of over 700,000
residents. D.C. has more residents than we know than two
states. D.C., as a whole, contributes more Federal taxes than
12 states, and it pays more in Federal income tax than 19 other
states. More than 8,000 Washington, D.C., residents serve in
our military, and we thank them for their service. But these
servicemen and women also do not have full democratic
representation. They deserve the right and the ability to
govern themselves.
Now, we also know that crime in D.C. has fallen for the
last two years, and we all here support public safety. We all
want cops to patrol our streets. We all want communities to
feel safe. And we also know that flooding the city with troops
is not sustainable. So, look--and I have said this many times--
President Trump is obsessed with trying to run Washington,
D.C., and if President Trump wants to run Washington, D.C., he
should resign as President and run for Mayor.
Now, I was a mayor of Long Beach, my hometown, before I
came to Congress for eight years. I love local government. We
should, of course, all of us, spend our time working with local
elected officials. And Congress should not be undermining the
elected representatives and the people of Washington, D.C. And
if the Majority today wants to talk about crime in D.C., in the
District, we are happy to talk about crime in D.C.
We know that some of the worst crime and corruption in D.C.
is actually found at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. President Trump
is profiting from his office more than anyone in history.
Through his crypto grifts, he has profited $1.2 billion. He has
denied the rights of American citizens and deported people
illegally without due process. He has broken the law to deploy
soldiers on the streets of Los Angeles. He has abused his power
and canceled Federal spending and intimidated Americans who
disagree with him, whether you are a scientist, an elected
official, or a late-night talk show host. And he is trying to
illegally grab control of the Federal Reserve. He has illegally
imposed tariffs. He is ripping away healthcare from 17 million
Americans. All the while, he pretends to be tough on crime. And
we know that in his first days in office, Donald Trump pardoned
hundreds of his followers who beat, tased, and attacked brave
D.C. and U.S. Capitol Police.
And right now, since we are talking about crime and
corruption in D.C., as we speak, Trump is leading a White House
coverup of the Epstein files. Now, just yesterday, Trump's FBI
Director falsely claimed that he could not release the files,
which we know is false.
And let us review the facts. Epstein told the reporter that
Trump was his closest friend for ten years. One survivor also
said that Epstein's biggest brag was he was very good friends
with Donald Trump. In fact, there was an 8x10 picture framed of
Trump on his desk. We know the two are very close.
And just last week, our Committee released the birthday
note that Trump personally wrote to Epstein. It is right here.
The note said, by the way--and I will read it--``May every day
be another wonderful secret.'' That is a disgusting message to
send to a sex trafficker.
Now, the cover-up of this note might be just as bad as the
crime since we are talking about crime in Washington, D.C.,
today. Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit to punish The Wall
Street Journal for reporting on the birthday book, which he
claimed did not exist. Now, of course, we have verified that to
the world.
Now, experts have looked at this. Of course, this is Donald
Trump's signature. It certainly looks like the signature to me.
At the same time, his Administration is cutting deals with a
criminal, Ghislaine Maxwell. We know who she is exactly. She is
a monster who participated in crimes against up to over
possibly 1,000 women.
Now, Trump and our Attorney General have not turned over
the full Epstein file to our Committee, despite a bipartisan
subpoena signed by our Chairman and this Committee. If we want
to get tough on crime, if we want to talk about crime in D.C.,
we need to stand up to where the crime and corruption is
happening, and that is at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and hold
Donald Trump accountable for his record and his actions. It is
time for the House Majority and Republicans to stand up for the
Constitution and take on the biggest crime happening in this
country. It is time to release the Epstein files.
And with that, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
Our witnesses today include three current District of
Columbia government officials and one former official from the
Biden Administration. First of all, we are very honored to have
Washington, D.C. Mayor, Muriel Bowser, here. Mayor Bowser was
sworn into office on January 2, 2015, and began her third term
on January 2, 2023. Welcome, Mayor Bowser.
Next, we have Phil Mendelson, Chairman, Council of the
District of Columbia. He was sworn into office as Chair on June
13, 2012. His fifth term as chair began on January 2, 2023. Mr.
Mendelson has been a member of the D.C. Council since 1999.
Welcome.
Next, we have Brian Schwalb, Attorney General of the
District of Columbia. He was sworn into office on January 2,
2023. Welcome, sir.
And finally, we have Gregory Jackson. Mr. Jackson served as
the Deputy Director of the White House of Gun Violence
Prevention and Special Assistant to the President during the
Biden Administration.
Again, thank you all for joining us. I look forward to this
discussion today. I will say again, the purpose of this hearing
is to try to determine solutions to the crime crisis in
Washington, D.C., and how we can work together to make sure
that the District is safe for all the residents and all the
visitors who come here on a daily basis from all over the
world.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses will please
stand and raise their right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. Let the record show that the witnesses
answered in the affirmative, and thank you all. You may take a
seat.
We appreciate you being here today and look forward to your
testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your
written statement, and they will appear in full in the hearing
record. Please limit your oral statement to 5 minutes.
As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in
front of you so that it is on and the Members can hear you.
When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn
green. After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the
red light comes on, your 5 minutes have expired, and we would
ask that you please wrap up.
I now ask Mayor Bowser to begin the opening statement
segment of this hearing. And Mayor Bowser, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF MURIAL BOWSER
MAYOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Ms. Bowser. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer, Ranking Member Garcia, and Members of the
Committee, I am Muriel Bowser. I am Mayor of Washington, D.C.,
and I am joined by the Chairman of the D.C. Council, Phil
Mendelson; and the Attorney General for the District, Brian
Schwalb.
I am pleased to be here today to report on the state of the
District. First, a bit of a primer about my hometown. As you
know, in 1973, Congress passed the District of Columbia Home
Rule Act, creating a local government with an elected Mayor and
elected City Council. We are represented in this body by a
mighty warrior, Eleanor Holmes Norton, but she does not have a
vote, and we have no representation in the Senate.
D.C. residents are full-blooded, tax-paying Americans. We
are a donor state. We give more to the Federal Government than
we get back. We have all the responsibilities of citizenship
but not the most important benefits, representation and full
autonomy.
I am proud to report that the state of the District is
strong, and while we face macroeconomic headwinds, with our
continued sound financial management and your help, our
economic growth outlook can improve.
I recently sent to the Council our 30th consecutive
balanced budget with no new taxes or fees, a budget that
reflects the sober reality of our time, declining revenues due
to the unfortunate continuation of remote work, the reduction
and relocation of D.C.-based Federal workers, and other
macroeconomic shifts. In 2024, we had the fastest-growing
population in the Nation. Our schools grew in enrollment and
achievement. Our parks system was rated number one. Over 27
million people visited our city, besting our previous record.
Our Metro system rebounded faster than other transit systems in
the Nation, and we drove down violent crime by 35 percent.
Let me say something about our public safety ecosystem. It
is unique. Like what happened in most jurisdictions across the
country post-COVID, we experienced a violent crime spike in
2023. When I was last here, I explained how we would drive down
those trends, and it is working. Today, compared to 2023,
burglaries are down 34 percent; theft, motor vehicle theft 37
percent; homicide down 44 percent, robberies down 60 percent;
and carjackings are down 71 percent. Overall, violent crime is
down 53 percent compared to 2023. And in the recent Federal
surge, we accelerated those gains, including a one-month
reduction in carjackings of 75 percent.
In my last visit, I also explained the peculiarities of our
system. We are very proud of the men and women of The
Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) who commit their lives to
protecting the Nation's capital, and they have my commitment to
get back up to 4,000 officers with critical changes to our
policy environment, a 13 percent raise, and enhanced
recruitment efforts.
MPD makes arrests. Most adult cases, however, are
prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney for D.C., who is part of the
United States Department of Justice. Our youth offenders are
prosecuted locally by our attorney general, and our Department
of Youth and Rehabilitation Services, a local agency, is
responsible for their commitment.
But our youth and adult offenders are supervised by Federal
agencies. D.C. jail is local, but most of our residents who are
committed to detention are in Federal facilities across the
Nation. Our judges are appointed by the President and confirmed
by the Senate. We currently have 13 vacancies.
As I have told you, we are putting every resource necessary
toward public safety. I have authorized the Chief to use the
overtime necessary to make sure we have adequate police on the
streets. We spent 1.8 million hours of overtime last year at a
cost to us of $75 million.
I have also reported to you previously that we engage
regularly with regional and Federal partnerships, including the
United States Attorney, the FBI, and the ATF. And that is why
we will continue to use enhanced Federal resources, as outlined
in my Mayor's order, creating the D.C. Safe and Beautiful
Emergency Task Force.
In 2023 and in the years since, we pushed for legislation
to rebalance our public safety ecosystem, including the Secure
D.C. Omnibus.
I am out of time now, Mr. Chairman, but throughout the
questions, I hope to also explain to you other ways that the
Congress can be helpful, including helping us get back to 4,000
officers, fully funding the President's--when it comes--request
for beautification and safety efforts in D.C. to support
America250, helping with our homeless services, especially
bridge housing that is working to get people off the streets.
And finally, as we were able to do, Mr. Chairman, with the
RFK legislation, there are finance and economic resilience
opportunities, like creating an opportunity zone, or D.C.'s Act
60, like Puerto Rico's, to ensure the economic resilience of
the Nation's capital.
Chairman Comer. Thank you. Very good.
I now recognize Chairman Mendelson for his opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF PHIL MENDELSON, CHAIRMAN
D.C. CITY COUNSEL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mr. Mendelson. Thank you, Chairman Comer, Ranking Member
Garcia, Congresswoman Norton, Members of the Committee. I am
Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia. Our form
of government is nearly identical to yours. The Council's
relationship to the Mayor is the same as yours to the
President. I am pleased to testify and to finally present our
views on matters that are clearly of concern to the Committee.
We are a beautiful city. Our public parks are well
maintained. Our roads are in good condition. We have a world-
class public transit system. Our public education system is a
leader in the country in terms of choice and a leader among
large city systems in terms of growth and academic achievement.
Political rhetoric notwithstanding, criminal activity has
been on the decline, with violent crime dipping to a 30-year
low last year and even lower this year. The percentage of our
citizens with health insurance is one of the highest in the
country. Public lands, public transit, public education, public
safety, public health, core functions of government, and we are
doing well.
And we are well-managed. We adopt a balanced budget on time
every year. We spend within our budget every year. We have had
clean audits every year. We continue to maintain strong cash
reserves. All of our pension programs are fully funded. And we
continue to maintain AAA and AA-plus financial ratings despite
Wall Street's express concern over the negative economic impact
of Federal actions.
Despite these pluses, we are a city under siege. It is
frustrating to watch this Committee debate and vote on 14 bills
regarding the District without a single public hearing, with no
input from District officials or the public, without regard for
community impact, nor a shred of analysis including legal
sufficiency or fiscal impact.
Bills like H.R. 5183, the District of Columbia Home Rule
Improvement Act, make the District less efficient, less
competitive, and less responsive to the needs of a highly
complex, unique local government that serves local, county, and
state functions. The SOAR Improvements Act would actually hurt
50,000 schoolkids in the District by defunding the D.C. public
school system by approximately $17.5 million. It also would
void a longstanding compromise agreed to by Congress with
District officials.
H.R. 5140, the Juvenile Sentencing Reform Act, is actually
criminogenic. Data suggests that juveniles tried as adults are
not scared straight, but rather are more likely to reoffend
sooner and more often than those treated in the juvenile
system. Moreover, you criticize the Council for being soft on
crime, but the current age thresholds this bill repudiates were
enacted by Congress.
Over the last several years, the Council has taken steps to
strengthen our criminal laws, and I will note that we have been
able to pass these bills while Congress has not. For instance,
we have strengthened the probability of pretrial detention.
Even before we did that, the re-arrest rate for individuals
released pretrial was among the lowest in the country.
We have strengthened, by clarifying and imposing new
penalties, the criminal laws including shoplifting, carjacking,
strangulation, and felony endangerment with a firearm. We have
reinstated police resource officers in our schools, and we have
taken a number of steps to support our police, including
approving, just yesterday, a 13-percent pay raise for police
officers and approving hiring incentives to increase the ranks
of our police force. And we are about to adopt a deferred
retirement option program to make service more attractive and
to incentivize officers to stay longer.
Instead of blaming the Council, there are tangible actions
we need from you because our public safety system is part
Federal. For instance, the greatest deterrents to crime are
``arrest and prosecute,'' but the U.S. Attorney prosecutes our
criminals. And the best way to reduce recidivism is prison
programming, but the U.S. Bureau of Prisons is responsible for
this. And to further reduce re-arrests for ex-offenders and
pretrial suspects, we need two Federal agencies, The Court
Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) and Pretrial
Services, better resourced.
If Congress really wants to further reduce crime in the
District of Columbia, here is what you can do: fill Offices of
United States Attorneys (USAO) vacancies, double the funding we
already provide for MPD hiring bonuses, adequately fund CSOSA
and the Pretrial Services Agency, fully reimburse MPD for
protecting the Federal presence. The underfunding by Congress
over the last four fiscal years totals $83 million. Submit and
confirm our judicial nominees. Our courts have a 20-percent
vacancy rate in judges, backlogging the criminal docket. Amend
the Federal Privacy Act so that more data can be shared between
Federal and local law enforcement agencies. Allow our local
attorney general to prosecute all misdemeanors because the
United States Attorney usually does not. And help us pay for a
new jail, which houses Federal prisoners, just as Congress
helped pay for a new forensic lab 15 years ago.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I appreciate the
Committee's attention, and I also want to welcome Congressman
Garcia as the new Ranking Member.
Chairman Comer. Thank you.
I now recognize General Schwalb for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN SCHWALB
ATTORNEY GENERAL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mr. Schwalb. Chairman Comer, Ranking Member Garcia,
Congresswoman Norton, Members of the Committee, I am Brian
Schwalb, D.C. Attorney General, and I am pleased to testify
about the work my office is doing to advance the District's
interests and to make Washington, D.C., safer and more
affordable for everyone.
I am a third-generation Washingtonian. My wife and I raised
our three daughters here. I love this city. Just like your home
districts, D.C. is made up of vibrant neighborhoods,
hardworking, talented people who are the backbone of our
culture and our economy. We are small business owners,
veterans, teachers, nurses, and police officers, committed
civil servants. We are Americans who deserve the same freedom
to govern ourselves as your constituents enjoy.
But unlike your constituents who benefit from having you
here to advance their interests, the more than 700,000
residents who call D.C. home have no vote in Congress. We do,
however, have elected local leaders, including an elected
attorney general.
As Attorney General, I am committed to ensuring
Washingtonians have a first-rate public law office, enforcing
their laws, protecting their taxpayer dollars, and advancing
the public interest. My office handles thousands of matters
across an array of issues, from enforcing child support orders
and protecting domestic violence victims to holding companies
accountable for fueling the opioid crisis. We protect seniors
and consumers from scams. We go after slumlords. We defend
district agencies, including our police department, securing
and saving hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Nothing
is more important to the work we do than making the District
safer for everyone who lives here, works here, and visits here.
As you have heard, D.C.'s criminal justice system is
unique, and its structure is often a source of confusion.
Unlike anywhere else in the country, the responsibility for
prosecuting local crime in the District is divided between the
Federal Government; the United States Attorney's Office, which
handles all adult felonies and most adult misdemeanors; and my
office, which prosecutes juvenile delinquency cases and certain
adult misdemeanors. Because the vast majority of crime in the
District of Columbia is committed by adults, not juveniles, it
is the U.S. Attorney's Office that handles the vast majority of
prosecution.
Despite our limited jurisdiction, we take our
responsibility over juvenile prosecution seriously. Our
attorneys aggressively prosecute violent juvenile offenses
whenever there is sufficient evidence to meet the burden of
proof. Kids must face consequences, swift and certain
consequences, when they break the law. And our prosecutors work
every day to hold them accountable and ensure victims receive
justice.
Last year, we prosecuted 84 percent of all violent juvenile
cases, including over 90 percent of homicides and attempted
homicides, 87 percent of carjackings, and 86 percent of gun
cases. Crime rates last year reached 30-year lows and have
continued to decline this year, but there is more work to be
done. We must continue to pursue a comprehensive public safety
strategy. Effective policing and prosecution are critical, so
too are preventive efforts designed to stop crime before it
happens. Keeping people safe is not a choice between law
enforcement or prevention. We must do both.
As the Nation's capital, public safety in the District has
always required a strong working partnership with Federal law
enforcement, regardless of who is in the White House. We have
worked and will continue to work closely with our Federal law
enforcement partners every day. But declarations of emergency
and unilateral Federal actions, taken without coordination or
advance warning, do not promote long-term public safety.
Sending masked agents in unmarked cars to pick people off
the streets, flooding our neighborhoods with National Guardsmen
who are untrained in local policing, attempting a Federal
takeover of our police force, none of these are durable, long-
lasting solutions for driving crime down. In fact, they
threaten to destroy critical trust between local communities
and the police, trust which is essential to effective,
efficient policing and prosecution.
There are constructive ways the Federal Government can work
with us to continue driving crime down. For example, Congress
can help combat the flood of illegal guns pouring into our
city. Ninety-five percent of illegal guns that end up on our
streets come from outside the District. We also need help
filling long-standing judicial vacancies, confirming our highly
qualified nominees. The vacancy crisis has led to severe case
backlogs, with felony cases being scheduled into 2027,
resulting in delayed justice for crime victims and the
community. Finally, Congress could help by investing
desperately needed services in facilities like a psychiatric
residential treatment facility for youth with serious mental
and behavioral health issues that often contribute to crime.
All of us, D.C.'s elected officials, Members of Congress,
we have a shared goal, a shared goal of continuing to make
durable improvements to public safety in the District of
Columbia. I and my office are ready to have serious discussions
on how best to do that with anybody who is willing in good
faith and in the spirit of partnership to have them with us.
Thank you for having me here today.
Chairman Comer. Thank you, General.
And I will recognize Mr. Jackson for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY JACKSON, JR. (MINORITY WITNESS)
FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR, WHITE HOUSE
OFFICE OF GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION
AND SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
Mr. Jackson. All right. Thank you, Chairman Comer, Ranking
Member Garcia, Congresswoman Norton, and the Committee for
having me. I am Greg Jackson, a D.C. resident, a survivor of
gun violence, and the former Deputy Director for the first-ever
White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention. This was an
office that coordinated Federal resources, implemented
lifesaving policies, and coordinated with local leaders to
achieve a 13.2 percent reduction in violent crime and a 31
percent reduction in homicides nationwide in just two years.
I spent the last decade of my life working to address this
crisis, from consoling a mother who lost her 10-year-old who
was buying ice cream in D.C., to walking the hallways in
Parkland with families that lost their loved ones to school
shootings. And we have seen firsthand how this is destroying
too many families in our country. This is now the leading cause
of death for youth in America, the leading cause of death for
pregnant women in America, and now the leading cause of newly
disabled Americans.
With one in five Americans being impacted by this violence,
this is also personal for me. I am a survivor of gun violence.
When I was shot, the bullet hit two arteries. I have also lost
my teenage mentee, DeMarcos, from a shooting. And I have also
sat with families throughout this district.
Despite this crisis we face, the last few years have shown
us that we do have solutions that work. In the previous two
years, D.C. and cities across the country have seen historic
reductions in gun violence without the deployment of masked
agents or the military. We did this by investing in prevention
and intervention efforts to communities at risk and
strategically investing in law enforcement to keep illegal guns
off of our streets and to close homicides.
Recently, even the current FBI Director, Kash Patel,
celebrated historic levels--or historic reductions in violent
crime, but we know that is not the product of a few months of
troops or FBI actions. They are the result of billions in
prevention resources, law enforcement and community leaders
risking their lives every day, as well as the transformative
policies implemented over the last few years.
Without masked agents and troop deployments, we have seen
homicides drop 54 percent in Baltimore, 20 percent in Atlanta,
41 percent in Phoenix, 27 percent in Los Angeles, and as shared
by district leadership, violent crime in D.C. is down by 53
percent. We got here in major part because Republicans and
Democrats came together to enact a bipartisan law that provided
historic resources for violence prevention, law enforcement
strategies, as well as enhanced our background check system for
those under 21, preventing domestic abusers from accessing
guns, making the largest investment in youth mental health in
history, as well as community violence intervention, and making
gun trafficking a Federal crime, prosecuting those who are
flooding guns into our communities. These strategies, in
partnership with local leaders, reduced homicides, again, by 31
percent and mass shootings by 20 percent in our country.
As our communities have been fighting our way out of this
crisis, we find ourselves at a dangerous crossroad. Instead of
adding more Federal resources to solutions that work, the Trump
Administration has dismantled and defunded bipartisan
strategies passed into law to reduce violence. They shut down
the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention. They
defunded law enforcement, including the ATF. They cut over $1
billion in mental health resources for our schools, terminated
$812 million in funding for community violence intervention
programs, defunded gun violence research, shut down the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Firearm Injury Center,
dismantled important regulations like the zero tolerance policy
for gun dealers, and now plans to further defund critical
resources to address the root causes of violence, like housing,
employment, and healthcare.
And here in D.C., the Administration and Congress' actions
have been extremely harmful, withholding over $1 billion of
D.C. local tax dollars, undermining our leadership, and
flooding our neighborhoods with military to instill fear in
everyday Americans.
Look, I live in Ward 8, a community that the White House
has called a slum. But for us, this is a neighborhood where we
walk our dogs, we listen to jazz on Sundays, we grill out
during the summers, and most importantly, like any
neighborhood, we support each other. But since this D.C. Trump
takeover, we hear sirens nightly, we have seen buildings raided
daily, like the building of young Makai, who is sitting behind
me. We have seen elderly harassed on their porch, and now even
traffic jams from the flood of police and military on our
streets. This deployment of Federal troops that is essentially
making us feel hostage in our own homes is not the Federal
support we need. And most importantly, it is costly, costing
our country an estimated $200 million for one city alone.
To be tough on crime, we need a different approach. We need
a Federal law enforcement that focuses on keeping guns out of
our communities in the first place. We need to be tough on
crime by fully funding the ATF to catch gun traffickers, to
shut down rogue gun dealers, to disrupt dangerous black markets
of firearms. To be tough on crime, we need to protect and fund
the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that was passed and is
working. To be tough on crime, we must hold the billionaires
accountable that have put weapons from the battlefield into our
backyards. And to be tough on crime, we must fund resources for
communities that are most at risk to prevent violence before it
happens.
We have real solutions to save lives from gun violence and
reduce violent crime, and now is the time to protect that
progress and continue to build on that momentum.
Thank you.
And Chairman, if you will, I do want to request, we had a
really terrible tragedy last night where five officers were
shot and three were lost, and I would kindly like to request we
honor them with a moment of silence if you will.
Chairman Comer. Absolutely. Join me in a moment of silence.
[Moment of silence.]
Chairman Comer. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your
statement, Mr. Jackson.
That concludes our opening statements. We are now going to
proceed with questions. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Arizona, Dr. Gosar, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mayor
Bowser.
I often say that trust is a series of promises kept, and it
has been made clear that Congress cannot trust a swamp to
enforce the rule of law. Last week, this Committee passed my
bill, the District of Columbia's Home Rule Improvement Act, to
ensure our Nation's capital is safe, stable, and governed
responsibly.
Congressional oversight is vital to rehabilitate the
District of Columbia from its chronic crime epidemic and
restore law and order. Failed leadership, soft-on-crime
policies, rampant corruption has left D.C. more dangerous than
war-torn Baghdad. This Committee's investigation reveals Metro
PD falsified crime statistics, while the Attorney General's
Office seals the juvenile criminals' records to protect those
so-called minors. But let us be honest, they are not kids.
These are 24-year-old criminals.
By allowing adults to be tried as minors, Washington, D.C.,
is aiding and abetting criminal activity that threatens the
lives of residents, visitors, and everyone who works in our
Nation's capital. Washington, D.C., must earn back the trust of
President Trump and Congress, but it does not happen just by
blatantly manipulating crime statistics, seeking politically
motivated litigation, and spending irresponsibly.
Mayor Bowser, I must tell you, I have never felt safer in
D.C. There is a record-low crime rate and increasing gang-
related arrests and friendly National Guardsmen patrolling the
streets. Why is D.C. safer now than it was 38 days ago?
Ms. Bowser. Thank you for the question, Congressman. And as
I explained, and as I explained when we were here two years
ago, it is true that we experienced, like many places, a spike
in 2023. I can say unequivocally, this is not 2023. In each of
the past two years, we have driven down crime. In 2023, we
finished the year 35 percent down. Last year, we finished the
year, I believe, 24 percent down. And all throughout this year,
we were driving down to more than a 20 percent decrease in
violent crime.
I have also testified that, during the surge, we
experienced many hundreds of Federal officers, Federal officers
and agencies that we typically work with. And we did experience
further decreases in all categories. The most substantial was
in carjackings.
Mr. Gosar. Got it. Now, Chairman Mendelson, you voted in
favor of the Youth Rehabilitation Amendment Act of 2013, right?
Mr. Mendelson. Correct.
Mr. Gosar. Okay. Now, if this bill allows adults under 25
years of age to be prosecuted as minors, in 2023, you testified
before this Committee that there was no crime crisis in D.C.
Now, if there is no crime crisis, then why did you establish
the D.C. Violence Fatality Review Committee back in 2018, right
before passing the Youth Rehabilitation Amendment Act? In
fact--hold on. I am not done yet.
Mr. Mendelson. Sure.
Mr. Gosar. In fact, this review Committee, according to the
D.C. Code, chapter 14A, is tasked with examining crimes against
adults 19 years old and older. This makes no sense.
So, Chairman, are 19-year-olds only considered adults when
they are victims, not the criminals creating more and more
violent crimes? Your Juvenile Curfew Emergency Declaration
Resolution of 2025 states, ``Since 2023, the District has seen
a rise in unruly behavior by juveniles.'' Which is it? Yes or
no? Do you admit that there has been a rise in juvenile crime
here in D.C. under President Trump's declared public safety
emergency?
Mr. Mendelson. That there has been an increase in juvenile
crime in the last month? I have not seen the data. I do not
think so, though.
Mr. Gosar. Okay.
Mr. Mendelson. But let me just say that the Youth
Rehabilitation Act does not allow minors to be--excuse me,
adults to be prosecuted as minors. They are still prosecuted as
adults.
Mr. Gosar. Well, I mean, it is very confusing when you have
the definition of a minor is 25 and under. And then your
statistics--actually, you look at victims at 19 years and
younger, so it has to be a statistic--see, statistically, you
can make anything work with statistics.
Mr. Mendelson. Well----
Mr. Gosar. So, it has got to be one way or the other.
Mr. Mendelson. As you know, each law sometimes has its own
definition. So, for purposes of YRA sentencing, we define
younger adults under 24. But that is not the same as they are
being prosecuted as juveniles. Our criminal code is quite clear
that anyone who is under 18 is prosecuted as a juvenile unless
they are for the most serious crimes, murder and sexual crimes,
they are, by the U.S. Attorney, chosen to be prosecuted as
adults.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. Thank you.
Mr. Gosar. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Garcia from California.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Chairman Comer.
I want to just, also, say this clearly, and I know that we
all believe this. Violent crime, we know, has no place in our
communities. People absolutely have a right to be concerned
about crime. As a former mayor--and a lot of us have been in
local government--we know that those concerns are real on the
ground.
Now, Democrats believe in investing in solutions that
actually make people safer. Now, Mayor Bowser, Chairman
Mendelson, Attorney General Schwalb, now can each of you just
confirm with a yes or a no that you agree with me that, one, we
need to make sure that we have local officers on the beat; that
two, that we are investing in community partnerships and
organizations on the ground; and three, that we are building
trust with law enforcement. Are those things important, Mayor
Bowser?
Ms. Bowser. Yes.
Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mendelson. Yes.
Mr. Garcia. AG Schwalb?
Mr. Schwalb. Yes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. Now, Mr. Jackson, is it also true
that President Trump has actually destroyed and eliminated many
of the programs which fight gun violence and save lives?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Garcia. And did President Trump also not eliminate the
Office of Gun Violence Prevention, of which, of course, you
were very involved in leading?
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. And also, Mr. Jackson, is it not
true that the Office of Gun Violence Prevention and the other
work in the Administration was literally focused on making this
country safer?
Mr. Jackson. That is correct.
Mr. Garcia. Now, Mayor Bowser, as a former mayor, I know
how hard, of course, you are working to keep people safe. You
have said that masked ICE agents on the streets of D.C. are not
helping, which I appreciate and all of us appreciate. And of
course, today, we could be talking about more community
policing. We could be talking about illegal guns. We could be
talking about real partnerships and fully funding Washington,
D.C., but we cannot do that, of course because the Majority
continues to ignore the crimes and corruption at 1600
Pennsylvania and the corruption of this Administration.
Now, we cannot pull out a full map of Washington, D.C., but
there are other corruption hotspots across the District. Now,
let us look right next door to the White House. Here is the
headquarters of the Office of Management and Budget, just next
door. OMB ordered the unlawful freezing of more than $425
billion in congressionally authorized funds. This obviates the
law. It is corruption. It is a crime. This has hurt communities
in D.C. and across the country. They are blocking funds for
energy, education, law enforcement, and much more.
Now, let us go down the map a few miles south. Here is the
Department of Homeland Security, where Secretary Noem has
ordered unlawful deportations and unleashed masked Federal
agents to harm innocent people across the country. And we have
no idea, by the way, of who is following and who is not. Who is
following what rule? Who is not? What we do know is that the
legal rights of people and due process is being ignored.
If we go up the map back to the north on Maryland Avenue,
we have the Department of Education, also in D.C., more crimes
and corruption. Here, the Trump Administration illegally froze
billions of dollars of K-12 and adult education funding. They
even froze funding for mental health. And they are trying to
illegally dissolve the agency in violation of the law, again,
more crimes and corruption in Washington, D.C. This would
devastate children across the country, especially those with
disabilities.
Now, if we go back downtown, here is the Department of
Commerce, where Trump and the Secretary are breaking the law by
illegally imposing tariffs without congressional approval. And
all is being done in violation of the law, according to the
U.S. Court of Appeals.
And finally, if we go across the river, another part of
D.C., to the Pentagon, Secretary Hegseth is politicizing the
military. He leaked classified information, putting Americans
in uniform at risk. And he has illegally seized control of the
National Guard and ordered soldiers to illegally engage in law
enforcement activities.
And so, we can map D.C. We can map where crimes are
happening. We can map where corruption is happening. This, of
course, as all we know, is just the tip of the iceberg.
Now, we could list nearly every agency across the
government and every Federal building on a map at where crimes
and corruption are happening in the District. But we will not,
in this process, be silent where this crime and corruption is
happening.
I want to thank, again, all of our witnesses for your work
to lower crime in the District and to lower the temperature
across your population. I thank you all very much.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Grothman from
Wisconsin.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you very much.
I will point out this idea of crime going up or down,
crime, it depends what year you take as your base here. I guess
in Washington, D.C., the all-time high was in 1992, where we
had 482 murders. That is just almost beyond belief. Last year,
we had 187. If you go back ten years to 2014, we had 105. So,
you could say the murder rate almost doubled or you could look
at, you know, what we were at 220 and say it fell dramatically.
But in any event, I think the number of murders in Washington,
D.C., is an embarrassment. The amount of crime is an
embarrassment.
Now, I guess the thing is what we are doing to solve it,
and we just heard four experts apparently on the topic give
their opinion. I, sometimes, when I am back in my district,
which is not Washington, D.C., do ride-alongs with local
police, local sheriffs, local police, what have you. And I ask
them what the cause is of crime. And almost uniformly, they
talk about the breakdown in the family and how families are not
as strong as they once were. It is how there are not fathers in
the family. And I think if you look at statistics, which are
hard to find on the background of people committing crimes, you
frequently look at, what I would describe as, weak families and
fatherless families.
Nevertheless, four of you in your prepared statements have
talked about what we are doing to reduce crime. Not one of you
mentioned the decline of the role of the father in the family
over the last--it has been just getting worse over the last 60
years. I would like to ask you, are any of you doing anything
to try to keep more fathers at home and being mentors for these
kids? The vast majority of murders are committed by males. Are
you doing anything along the line to get the fathers back in
the home?
Ms. Bowser. Congressman, let me answer that by saying we--
and I know that I focused a lot on our law enforcement efforts,
but we commit to and invest in a lot of prevention efforts as
well, from incredible and effective funding of our public
schools to our----
Mr. Grothman. Yes, I only got 5 minutes.
Ms. Bowser. Yes, to----
Mr. Grothman. We have got to address the topic.
Ms. Bowser. Yes.
Mr. Grothman. What are we doing to get fathers in the home?
Ms. Bowser. Well, sir, we take the position that we support
families in whatever form they come in, and we make investments
that the government is responsible for, great schools, great
healthcare, safe streets.
Mr. Grothman. Mr. Jackson, do you want to try to answer
that question? Are you doing anything----
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
Mr. Grothman [continuing]. To talk about the importance?
Mr. Jackson. A major priority for funding for community
violence intervention programs focus directly on mentorship
with young men. In D.C., we have a program called Pathways. We
work directly with those who are most at risk. And it is about
everything from not just preventing violence, but how to
strengthen their ability to be fathers, to be leaders, to be
providers and protectors in the home.
Mr. Grothman. Are we doing anything to make sure that a
higher percentage of children born in the District are born in
families in which there is a father in the home? Are we doing
something to address that problem, which to me is the big
problem. And again and again, we have these hearings on crime,
and none of the witnesses seem to be addressing the root cause
of the whole problem.
Mr. Jackson. If I can, that $812 million that was
terminated by the Trump Administration cut community violence
intervention programs. Many of them do precisely that. So, if
that is a priority, we should be funding, doubling down, and
scaling out that work.
Mr. Grothman. I am not sure that is true, but any other
guys? Mr. Schwalb, are you aware of anybody doing anything to
talk about the importance, with Washington's youth, of having a
dad at home when that child is born? Is anybody addressing that
problem in the city?
Mr. Schwalb. Every day, all day, sir, people are talking
about how do we strengthen the family, how do we strengthen
communities for young people, how do we make sure that young
people have role models, family members, and others.
Let me mention one other thing that is important from the
work that my office does that does not make a lot of press. One
of the things we have a responsibility to do is do child
support enforcement.
Mr. Grothman. No, that is not the problem.
Mr. Schwalb. Noncustodial----
Mr. Grothman. The problem is we do not need a guy paying
child support or having his wages garnished. The problem is we
need a guy in the home, so what are we doing about getting the
guy in the home?
Mr. Schwalb. We are trying to make sure in the enforcement
of our child support rules that we are lowering the friction
between noncustodial parents and custodial parents----
Mr. Grothman. Okay. So----
Mr. Schwalb [continuing]. So that kids raised in the home
have both parents engaged.
Mr. Grothman. So, we are not addressing the problem. Okay.
Thank you.
Mr. Mendelson. Well, I do not agree that we are not
addressing the problem at all. We are trying to increase family
stability. We--the government--no government can force a couple
to be together too. But we are, for instance, we have vigorous
programs with regard to reducing teenage pregnancy. We are
trying to reduce----
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. The cycle of poverty.
Chairman Comer. And the Chair recognizes Ms. Norton from
Washington, D.C.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter
from 60 groups led by D.C. Vote, a letter from 150 groups led
by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and a
letter from the National Urban League and the Greater
Washington Urban League.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Norton. District of Columbia residents have all the
obligations of American citizenship, including paying Federal
taxes, serving on juries, and registering with selective
service. Yet, Congress denies them full self-government and
voting representation in Congress. The only solution to this
undemocratic treatment is to grant D.C. statehood.
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter
from leading constitutional scholars explaining why D.C.
statehood bill H.R. 51 is constitutional.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Norton. The admissions clause of the Constitution gives
Congress authority to admit new states. All 37 new states were
admitted by Congress. The District clause of the Constitution
gives Congress authority to reduce the size of the Federal
District, which Congress did by 30 percent in 1846. H.R. 51
reduces the size of the Federal District from 68 square miles
to two square miles, consisting of the White House, the
Capitol, the Supreme Court, and the National Mall, and the
remaining under the control of Congress. The new state consists
of residential and commercial areas of D.C.
The admissions clause does not establish any prerequisites
for the admission of new states, but Congress generally has
considered three factors, support for statehood, commitment to
democracy, and resources and population. Eighty-six percent of
D.C. residents voted for statehood in 2016. D.C. residents have
demanded democratic rights for more than 220 years. D.C. has a
larger gross domestic population than 16 states and a higher
per capita gross domestic product than any state. D.C. has the
higher per capita personal income than any state. D.C. has a
larger population than two states. Republicans do not like that
D.C. votes for Democrats, so they deny D.C. statehood.
Mayor Bowser, Chairman Mendelson, and Attorney General
Schwalb, my question for you is, why should D.C. be a state?
Mr. Schwalb. Representative Norton, across the globe,
Washington, D.C., symbolizes the power and the virtue of a
representative democracy, a government that is of the people,
by the people, and for the people. And yet, the 700,000 of us
that live here in the District of Columbia are the only
residents of the capital of a democratic country that do not
have a voice in our national legislature. That is wrong. That
is un-American.
D.C. residents are Americans, too. The lack of voting
representation harms the District of Columbia. We, at this
moment in our country, should be expanding democracy, not
constraining it.
Ms. Bowser. And Congresswoman, if I can add to Attorney
General Schwalb's remark because, frequently, people focus on
our lack of representation, and that is certainly an affront to
us as taxpaying Americans. What gets less focus, but has come
into focus over the last several weeks, is that we lack full
autonomy.
So, for all intents and purposes, we function like a state.
I function as our jurisdiction's Governor and county executive
and mayor. We perform the duties that all states are asked, and
we do not do anything less. But we do not have control of our
National Guard, and a peculiarity of our Home Rule Charter, a
President can declare an emergency in the District.
So, lack of full autonomy also prevents us from using the
money that we raised in taxes, like happened this year, taxes
that we raised in the District cut from our approved budget,
which forced us to cut services, including the pay raises that
our police officers are due being delayed until this October.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Now, the Chair recognizes the Chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, Mr. Jordan from Ohio.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mendelson is crime up or down in the last month here in
D.C.?
Mr. Mendelson. It is down.
Mr. Jordan. Down significantly, right? Robberies down 42
percent, deadly weapon assaults down 13 percent, carjackings
down 85 percent, car theft down 24 percent, violent crime down
25 percent. That is pretty good, right?
Mr. Mendelson. Yes, that is correct. Before last year,
excuse me, before the surge, violent crime was down 26 percent.
After the surge, violent crime was down 27 percent.
Mr. Jordan. Yes, I thought you would say that before the
surge, that violent crime was down, but the Chairman of the
Fraternal Order--in fact, you said--I think you tweeted out or,
excuse me, you put a statement out on August 12, ``Violent
crime in the District is at its lowest levels we have seen in
30 years.''
Mr. Mendelson. Correct.
Mr. Jordan. But the head of the Fraternal Order of Police,
Mr. Pemberton said, ``When our members respond to the scene of
a felony offense, inevitably, there will be a lieutenant or a
captain that will show up on the scene and direct those members
to take a report for a lesser offense.'' Are you guys cooking
the books?
Mr. Mendelson. I think we are not, but I also know that
there are a couple of investigations run by this Committee.
Mr. Jordan. Well, you settled a case, too, didn't you? You
just settled a case where someone said you were cooking the
books. Is that right?
Mr. Mendelson. I cannot speak to that case. I do not have
familiarity on it.
Mr. Jordan. Well, we know it was settled. It has been
reported.
Mr. Mendelson. But I do know there are collateral
statistics that affirm the reduction in crime.
Mr. Jordan. Is Mr. Pemberton lying?
Mr. Mendelson. I----
Mr. Jordan. The head of the Fraternal Order of Police
(FOP)?
Mr. Mendelson. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. You think he is lying? Wow. Well, let me just
read from the court case that was settled. This is the
transcript of Mr. Randy Griffin, who is the Commander of the
Metro Police Department. And he was asked a question in his
deposition. He says, ``Lieutenant Andrew Zabavsky came up with
a classification of taking property without right, correct?''
He responded yes. Question, ``So, he is saying that you told
him to come up with a solution for the theft problem, which is
driving up crime statistics for the District, correct?'' He
responded yes. Sounds like you guys are cooking the books
there, according to--this is under oath from the deposition
from this case that was just settled with the person who
brought the action, a sergeant in your police department. But
you are not cooking the books?
Ms. Bowser. Congressman, may I?
Mr. Jordan. No, no. Mr. Jordan. The question was to Mr.
Mendelson.
Mr. Mendelson. As I said, there are two investigations. I
know there is one internal in the Metropolitan Police
Department. I know that there is an investigation by this
Committee. I think that the three of us here----
Mr. Jordan. What is taking----
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. Welcome that investigation.
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. Property without right? What is
taking property without right?
Mr. Mendelson. Well, that would be theft.
Mr. Jordan. Well, why not call it theft? Why come up with
this designation? In fact, that is what he says. He is asked
the question----
Mr. Mendelson. Congressman, I cannot speak----
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. The solution----
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. To that particular case.
Mr. Jordan. The solution from Mr. Zabavsky was to come up
with this TPWR, taking property without right. What is that?
Taking property without right is what again?
Mr. Mendelson. If you are speaking to the particular
charges, I cannot speak to that. And as I have said several
times here, I cannot speak to that particular case. I think the
issue is whether there is widespread----
Mr. Jordan. I am asking a simple question. You have a
classification for crime called taking property without right.
What does that mean? What does that mean?
Mr. Mendelson. It means just what it said, if that is what
the crime is.
Mr. Jordan. Well, why not call it--I mean, what would a
normal person call taking property without right?
Mr. Mendelson. Are we talking about what the criminal code
and the specific crimes are?
Mr. Jordan. No, I am just talking about that statement that
you have that has grown 500 percent in the last several years,
that specific category of crime. I am just wondering, what does
that exactly mean?
Mr. Mendelson. So, if we look at collateral data such as
ShotSpotter, we know that gunshots are down 29 percent from
2023 to 2024.
Mr. Jordan. Taking property without right was the question.
What does that mean?
Mr. Mendelson. I have already answered you, sir.
Mr. Jordan. And what did you say again?
Mr. Mendelson. I said that if you are speaking to a
particular offense in our criminal code, I cannot speak to that
particular offense.
Mr. Jordan. Well, why not just call it stealing? That is
what we would all--someone comes and takes something that
belongs to me or someone comes and takes something that belongs
to you, we call it stealing.
Mr. Mendelson. Well, sir.
Mr. Jordan. Why create this new category that grows 500
percent that I think allows you to cook the books----
Mr. Mendelson. Sir, as you know----
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. As the head of the FOP----
Mr. Mendelson. As you----
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. In your city said so.
Mr. Mendelson. As you know, as the Chair of the Judiciary
Committee, there are, for many offenses, a range of possible
charges from misdemeanor to felony and different shades of
felony. So, I am not--I am not familiar with that----
Mr. Jordan. Is it----
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. Particular offense.
Mr. Jordan. Is it a good thing that, are you against having
the National Guard here, or do you think that has been helpful
to the citizens and the families and the people who live in the
D.C. area?
Mr. Mendelson. We think that the D.C. National Guard is a
very valuable and wonderful asset to the city. That is a little
bit different than having thousands of guard troops stationed
around the city when they are not trained in law enforcement.
And my understanding is that many of them were looking kind of
bored with what they were doing.
Mr. Jordan. My time has run out. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Lynch from
Massachusetts.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. I want to thank the witnesses for
your willingness to come before the Committee and help us with
our work.
Mayor Bowser, back in March, the Republican leadership here
in the House cut $1.1 billion from the D.C. budget.
Ms. Bowser. Yes.
Mr. Lynch. Is that correct?
Ms. Bowser. That is correct.
Mr. Lynch. So, I live in Boston. We have about 700,000
people in our city, pretty much the same size as D.C. I know
taking $1 billion out of our budget would kill us, you know, in
terms of our ability to deliver services and fund a police
department. Can you talk about what that meant? It is ironic,
it is ironic, that the same people who cut $1.1 billion out of
your budget four months later are saying, we are going to take
over the city because you are not taking care of law
enforcement.
Ms. Bowser. That is correct, Congressman. And it was
especially problematic because it came midyear. To cut $1
billion with 12 months is bad enough, but to cut it with six
months, it is almost impossible.
Mr. Lynch. And Mayor, tell me where that $1.1 billion,
where did it come from?
Ms. Bowser. It came from every one of our sectors. And when
you have to cut that much money----
Mr. Lynch. But, I mean, the source, was that from D.C.
taxpayers?
Ms. Bowser. One hundred percent local dollars.
Mr. Lynch. Okay. So, they cut $1.1 billion of the tax money
paid by D.C. residents.
Ms. Bowser. That is correct.
Mr. Lynch. They cut that from your budget so that you
cannot provide as much law enforcement and police officers to
patrol these streets. Is that right?
Ms. Bowser. That is right.
Mr. Lynch. And Chairman Mendelson, you mentioned earlier
that it had about $83 million underfunding of the police
department directly. Is that correct?
Mr. Mendelson. That is correct. There is an emergency
planning and security fund that Congress appropriates every
year for. It is supposed to fully reimburse our MPD for its
work in connection with the Federal presence----
Mr. Lynch. Okay.
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. Whether it is demonstrations or
escorts for the President.
Mr. Lynch. I get it. There is a protest down here every
couple of days, so----
Mr. Mendelson. Yes.
Mr. Lynch [continuing]. You know, I compliment you----
Mr. Mendelson. And it has been underfunded.
Mr. Lynch [continuing]. On your ability to try to deal with
that. And that is not D.C.'s problem. That is the country
because this is the place we come to exercise our First
Amendment rights to petition our government. So, that is a lot
of your problem is the fact that you are our Nation's capital,
and this is where we come to complain, right? We complain to
our Federal Government, and you have to deal with that.
Attorney General Schwalb, are you familiar with the Posse
Comitatus Act?
Mr. Schwalb. I am, sir.
Mr. Lynch. Your mic is not on.
Mr. Schwalb. Yes, the Posse Comitatus Act is a law, a
longstanding law in our country that makes clear that in our
country, military are not engaged in policing American citizens
on American soil.
Mr. Lynch. Absolutely. But isn't that what President Trump
is doing right now, bringing in the military to police the
civilian population in this district? That is exactly what he
is doing. Is that your view as well?
Mr. Schwalb. Well, sir, I filed a lawsuit that involves
that very issue in terms of the legality.
Mr. Lynch. I read that. That is why I asked you the
question.
Mr. Schwalb. And so, while the lawsuit is pending, I am not
going to talk about the specifics----
Mr. Lynch. Okay.
Mr. Schwalb [continuing]. Of the lawsuit or the----
Mr. Lynch. Okay.
Mr. Schwalb [continuing]. Merits of it, but I am very
concerned about the law of our country being followed,
especially when it puts the District and District residents in
harm's way.
Mr. Lynch. Fair enough. Fair enough. Look, so now we have
armed military on the streets here in D.C. because they cut
your budget so you cannot hire more police and also to recruit
more police officers. That is suffering as well. And yet I see
that not only is the military being politicized coming in here
and supporting one President's agenda, but they are also
suffering the humiliation of having to go pick up trash and do
landscaping and spreading mulch, things like that. That is not
what we ask of our sons and daughters when they put on that
uniform. We should treat them with more respect than this
President is treating them right now.
Madam Mayor, how many additional police officers do you
think you could hire with that $1.1 billion that was cut from
your budget?
Ms. Bowser. Well, we think we can safely hire up to 300
officers per year. We know that we can add to our recruitment
bonuses. We know that we can invest in the types of things that
young officers want, like take home patrol cars, like updated
training facilities and improved district headquarters.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, my time has
expired. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Dr. Foxx from North Carolina.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mayor Bowser, I am going to ask you a simple question based
on the question you were just asked. Do you commit to use all
that money to hire law enforcement people?
Ms. Bowser. We commit to using it for law--where it was cut
primarily. We have a----
Ms. Foxx. No, I just need to know yes or no because you are
making a big deal about wanting that money for law enforcement.
Would you use it for law enforcement, yes or no?
Ms. Bowser. Well, Congressman, we want the money because it
was approved by this Congress----
Ms. Foxx. Okay.
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. And it is our money.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you. Thank you. I take that----
Ms. Bowser. We want it for law enforcement.
Ms. Foxx. I take that as a no.
Ms. Bowser. We want it for fire and EMS.
Ms. Foxx. Mayor Bowser, I am going to change----
Ms. Bowser. We want it to support----
Ms. Foxx [continuing]. The way I am asking you questions.
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. Our city.
Ms. Foxx. Mayor Bowser.
Ms. Bowser. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Foxx. It is my time. It is my time.
Chairman Comer. There will be order in here. Dr. Foxx has
the time. Let Dr. Foxx proceed. Dr. Foxx.
Ms. Foxx. Mayor Bowser, do you agree that a key part of
reducing juvenile crime is by improving education outcomes for
students in Washington, D.C.?
Ms. Bowser. Yes.
Ms. Foxx. Good. So, you believe that education is important
for reducing juvenile crime. Do you also agree that the D.C.
Opportunity Scholarship Program, or DCOSP, which expands
educational opportunities for low-income families, plays a part
of helping us reach that goal?
Ms. Bowser. We have a system of choice here that includes
opportunity scholarships, public charter schools, and
traditional public schools.
Ms. Foxx. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Bowser. All three.
Ms. Foxx. I am quite familiar with that.
Ms. Bowser. Yep.
Ms. Foxx. So, we know students in the DCOSP can receive a
high-quality education while they may be otherwise left behind
in the horribly underperforming schools in D.C. This program
provides real school choices for families that have been
repeatedly studied and evaluated. The results show that
participants in the program thrive and see higher rates of high
school graduation in the pursuit of higher education.
Mayor Bowser, given the recent spike in juvenile crime in
this city, I hope we can agree it is more important now than
ever that schoolchildren have pathways to succeed and learn in
safe, high-performing schools. What is your administration
doing to ensure students have access to alternative education
programs, including the DCOSP, to keep them engaged and on
track?
Ms. Bowser. Well, we have been very supportive of the SOAR
Act, and we encourage this Congress to continue to support SOAR
where we invest in all sectors, including the Opportunity
Scholarship Fund. We are also very proud that when we look back
over 15 years in our investments in school reform with mayoral
control of the schools and Council oversight of the schools, we
have seen enrollment in our schools nearly reach 100,000. We
have seen achievement outpace our peer schools across the
Nation, and our children have rebounded from COVID learning
loss faster than most.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you.
Ms. Bowser. And----
Ms. Foxx. Thank you.
Ms. Bowser. Our residents are responding.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you.
Ms. Bowser. Okay. I just was going to add that our
residents are responding by sending their children to their
neighborhood schools----
Ms. Foxx. Thank you.
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. And that is a marker of success.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you.
Chairman Mendelson, given that better educational
opportunities are strongly correlated with reducing reductions
in juvenile crime, what immediate steps is the City Council
taking to ensure that D.C. youth have the best educational
opportunities and are not left behind in failing schools?
Mr. Mendelson. Well, Congresswoman, thank you for that
question. We actually, the Council, has actually taken a number
of steps to ensure that funding is not cut to our local
schools, that the individual schools in District of Columbia
Public Schools (DCPS) and in the charter schools are fully
funded. We have been very aggressive about assuring that, but I
want to note that the legislation that was passed would have
the effect of cutting DCPS by $17.5 million a year. That is
hurting kids, hurting 50,000 kids in our DCPS system because
they will get $17.5 million less, and that is substantial.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you. AG Schwalb, what evidence does your
office have that designated juvenile curfew zones have
successfully reduced incidents of teenagers roaming or causing
disturbances in residential neighborhoods, and how are those
results measured?
Mr. Schwalb. We have seen, and I support the Chief's use of
curfew with respect to juveniles. The way the curfew has been
used here in the District is a tool for the MPD to ask young
people to disperse if there are large groups of them. That has
been largely successful.
If youth have not dispersed in response to the MPD request,
MPD will occasionally pick those youth up and bring them to
what is called our Youth Services Center where their parents
are called, and they are brought home. We have not seen an
increase in prosecution related to curfew, but we know
anecdotally that the curfew, at least as a short-term measure,
has been effective in dispersing large crowds of young people.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Thank you. Before I recognize----
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for
unanimous consent.
Chairman Comer. Yes.
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for
unanimous consent to enter into the record an article from Vox
News entitled, ``Laboratories of Democracy: Washington, D.C.,
showed how to do universal pre-K right. D.C. offers free pre-K
for toddlers. The ripple effects have helped K through 12
schools.'' This is the first----
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. City in the United States to
have universal----
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. Pre-K in the country.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes----
Ms. Stansbury. They are innovating----
Chairman Comer [continuing]. Mr. Krishnamoorthi.
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. And leading the way.
Chairman Comer. Ms. Stansbury, no tryouts for MSNBC.
And before I recognize Mr. Krishnamoorthi, if I may, that
$1 billion is restored in the continuing resolution that we are
going to vote on tomorrow.
Mr. Lynch. It has not been taken up. The Senate took it up
a long time ago, and this House----
Chairman Comer. Well, I have been a proponent----
Mr. Lynch [continuing]. Has refused to take that up.
Chairman Comer [continuing]. For that, and I have----
Mr. Lynch. So, let us not talk about what we are going to
do. Let us talk about what we have done.
Chairman Comer. Well, are you going to vote for the CR, Mr.
Lynch? Are the Democrats going to vote for the CR that
restores----
Mr. Lynch. I have not read it.
Chairman Comer [continuing]. That $1 billion funded?
Mr. Lynch. I have not read it yet.
Chairman Comer. Okay.
Mr. Lynch. Let me know what it says.
Chairman Comer. All right. We will send you the text.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Krishnamoorthi.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Though we are here today to discuss President Trump's
takeover of D.C. law enforcement, Chicago, which I represent,
is also on Trump's hit list. President Trump has demonized and
called Chicago a ``hellhole.''
Attorney General Schwalb, in August, the President called
D.C. a hellhole as well, right?
Mr. Schwalb. Yes, he did.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. He also said ``Chicago is the murder
capital of the world.'' And just yesterday, he called Chicago
``a death trap.'' I have here a list of states, a list of
states that, based on FBI data, have the highest number of
violent crimes per capita. Four of the top five states on this
list are run by Republicans. And if you are talking about total
murders in absolute terms, it turns out Texas is number one. In
this particular list here, Illinois is number 29.
Now, Attorney General, you see Alaska tops this list. To
your knowledge, the President has not called Alaska a hellhole,
right?
Mr. Schwalb. I have not heard that.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And Arkansas is number four here. He
did not call Arkansas a hellhole, correct?
Mr. Schwalb. I have not heard that.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And you have not heard the President
talk about deploying the National Guard in Texas, correct?
Mr. Schwalb. I have not.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Folks, this is not about crime. It is
about politics. Just this week, Trump said, ``I am going to
Chicago early against Pritzker. Pritzker, Pritzker is
nothing.'' That is not how a President should be talking about
any Governor or any state.
I would like to talk about the National Guard deployment
here in D.C. and the cost of it. Now, Mr. Jackson, as you said,
I believe that the D.C. deployment is going to cost over $200
million, correct?
Mr. Jackson. Correct. That is a projection.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Let us see how this money is being
used. Trump says it is for fighting crime, but here is a
guardsman carrying trash. Here is a guardsman mowing the lawn.
Here is a very nice gentleman, a guardsman, carrying a leaf
blower. Honorable work, certainly, but this is not why the
taxpayers fund the National Guard. If Trump was serious about
crime, he would not cut nearly $4 million in Federal funding
for local violence prevention groups in Chicago.
Attorney General, you would agree the President should be
funding these crime prevention programs not cutting them,
right?
Mr. Schwalb. As I said in my testimony, sir, prosecution
and prevention are both essential to making sure cities are
safe, and we have to do both crime intervention work. Violence
intervention work has been successful here in the District of
Columbia in terms of driving gun violence down.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. You should not be cutting that work,
right?
Mr. Schwalb. We need to invest in it.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Not cut it, right?
Mr. Schwalb. Correct.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I want to turn to another topic. In
Elgin, a Chicago suburb in my district, an American citizen was
pulled from his home, cuffed, and detained by ICE. And another
U.S. citizen in Des Plaines, also in my district, was tased in
the face and detained in another ICE operation. This is
shameful, and I am extremely concerned about the safety and
well-being of my constituents.
I am also concerned about the devastating impact that out-
of-control ICE raids and the deployment of the National Guard
will have on the economy and jobs back in the Chicago area. Let
us look at a couple stats. Foot traffic for Chicago's second-
most profitable business corridor on 26th Street is down 60
percent since ICE raids began. And this is not just a
hypothetical concern that the same would happen with the
deployment of National Guard.
Let us look at what has happened to D.C.'s economy. Mr.
Schwalb, CNN has reported restaurant reservations decreased by
as much as 31 percent, and foot traffic in retail stores is
down 81 percent. Those reports show that the President's
unilateral deployment of the Guard is hurting the local
economy, right?
Mr. Schwalb. That is consistent.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Folks, our economy is softening.
Unemployment and prices for necessities like vegetables are
soaring. Mr. President, let us put aside politics and hostility
toward Governors and elected officials. Let us not take actions
that hurt families and the economy.
I would like to turn to my final topic, and that is
domestic violence. Attorney General Schwalb, according to The
Hill, President Trump suggested that ``a little fight with the
wife should not count in D.C. crime stats.'' You do not dispute
The Hill reported this, right?
Mr. Schwalb. I saw that.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. But there is nothing little about
12,000 victims of domestic violence in D.C. or nothing little
about 50,000 Illinoisans experiencing domestic violence,
correct?
Mr. Schwalb. No, it is a very serious crime.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. There is nothing little about more than
12,000 children who witnessed domestic violence in Chicago
either, right?
Mr. Schwalb. It is traumatizing.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. It is abhorrent that the President
routinely dismisses violence faced by women. And given his
friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, this attitude, unfortunately,
comes as no surprise.
Let us be clear. There is nothing little about domestic
violence, not the scale of the problem or the courage of the
survivors. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Higgins from
Louisiana.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
On August 11, 2025, the day the President took action here
in D.C., Councilman Allen said this, ``The President taking
over local control of the MPD, and putting the U.S. military
onto the streets of D.C. under the guise of public safety is
wrong. It is an extreme, outrageous, and dangerous move for our
city and the safety of our residents.''
Do you agree with that statement by Councilmember Allen,
Attorney General Schwalb?
Mr. Mendelson. I do believe that the presence of thousands
of armed troops in the District has been a problem and
counterproductive for public safety in the District.
Mr. Jordan. Counterproductive, dangerous. He said the
second sentence, ``dangerous move for our city and the safety
of our residents.'' How is 85 percent reduction in carjackings
dangerous for the city's residents?
Mr. Mendelson. I do not believe that.
Mr. Jordan. Chairman Mendelson, do you agree with
Councilman Allen's statement?
Mr. Mendelson. Well, if the question is about the National
Guard reducing carjackings, I do not think the National Guard
was involved in reducing carjackings. They were----
Mr. Jordan. I am asking about the statement. Do you agree
with----
Mr. Mendelson. Could you----
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. Councilman Allen's statement?
Mr. Mendelson. Could you repeat the statement again?
Mr. Jordan. ``President taking over local control of the
MPD and the U.S. military on the streets of D.C. under the
guise of public safety is wrong. It is dangerous, outrageous,
and an extreme move for our city and the safety of our
residents.''
Mr. Mendelson. If you will recall at the time that he said
that, the order from the Attorney General.
Mr. Jordan. He said that the day it happened.
Mr. Mendelson. Yes, the order from the Attorney General was
that all orders within MPD would have to be approved by----
Mr. Jordan. How about you, Mayor? Do you agree with the
councilman's statement?
Mr. Mendelson. It would have to be approved by----
Mr. Jordan. I am asking the Mayor now.
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. The Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA).
Mr. Jordan. I am asking the Mayor now.
Mr. Mendelson. I know, but I did not finish my sentence.
Mr. Jordan. Well, I am asking the Mayor----
Mr. Mendelson. It has to be approved by the DEA.
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. The question. We control the time.
Mayor Bowser, do you agree?
Mr. Mendelson. It is complete disorganization.
Chairman Comer. The Mayor----
Ms. Bowser. Mr. Jordan, I think the statement is not what
happened, actually. So, the Home Rule Charter allows the
President to make requests of MPD through the Mayor. It does
not allow the President to take over MPD, which at no time
happened.
Mr. Jordan. Well, I will just point out that it seems to me
you disagree because you said just two weeks ago, ``we greatly
appreciate the surge of officers that enhance what MPD has been
able to do with the city. We know that when carjackings go
down, when gun use goes down, when homicidal robbery go down,
neighborhoods feel safer.'' It seems like Councilman Allen does
not know what he is talking about, looks like you definitely
disagree with him.
Ms. Bowser. We, having more officers enhance the
effectiveness of MPD allowed us to accelerate crime reduction.
Chairman Comer. Representative Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the
gentleman from Ohio.
We are constantly at odds with the leadership of D.C. as a
body, Congress, from the Republican side of the aisle because
there is a fundamental difference between the ideological
perspective of the elected officials of D.C. and the majority
of Americans across the country. And this is our Nation's
capital. We can admit that. It is okay to have ideological
variances. The city of D.C. plays a special role, and it is our
Nation's capital.
So, there need not be this level of friction when we are
discussing variances of political and social opinion that exist
within our own family. But this battle about the authority of
Congress within our Nation's capital and over our Nation's
capital, that does not have to be a fight. The Congress shall
have the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases
whatsoever over such district. The indispensable necessity of
complete authority at the seat of government carries its own
evidence with it. This is baked into the birth of our country.
And I have respect for the process that has elected you,
good lady, and you, gentlemen. And I very much respect you,
sir, Mr. Jackson, of everybody here. You are plugged into the
reality of the street, and I would like to talk to you further
about some of the programs that you embrace. That is a
different conversation. That is not elected guys with scripted
answers scrubbed by attorneys. You are for real, and I would
like to talk to you more.
I was happy to yield much of my time to the gentleman from
Ohio, and Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing.
And I yield my time.
Chairman Comer. Thank you, Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Bell. Mr. Chair, I request unanimous consent.
Chairman Comer. Okay.
Mr. Bell. I request unanimous consent to enter into the
record this August 22, 2025, article from CNN titled, ``GOP
Governors are sending troops to D.C. Their states have ten
cities with higher crime rates,'' which shows the blatant
hypocrisy of the GOP when their states have higher crime rates
than we see----
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Bell [continuing]. And yet choose to pretend----
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Mfume.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
thank you and the Vice Chair for convening us--the Ranking
Member, I should say.
Madam Mayor, good to see you again.
Ms. Bowser. Good to see you.
Mr. Mfume. You have a very tough job, and it goes without
saying that the 800-pound gorilla in this room is a realization
that you are fighting with one hand tied behind your back, and
you are strapped in as a result of policies and rulings and law
that prevents you in many instances from being the Mayor that
you want to be every day without being constrained. So, I just
want to say that on the record.
It is easy for a lot of people to point fingers, but until
you sat in that seat and had to make those decisions, it is
very difficult. And one of your arms has been tied behind your
back. Let us make no mistake about that.
I want to thank all of you who are here, but one thing that
I want to do is to go back and underscore the comments of
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton. I brought this up at the last
meeting that we had here on the District of Columbia, and that
is, the fact that, at the end of the day, so much of this can
be traced back to the imposition of policy on a governed people
without their participation. Let me repeat that. The imposition
of policy without participation by the citizens, the Americans,
it is just as it was with the Boston Tea Party. It comes down
to taxation without representation. When you cannot even fight
for yourself, stand for yourself, vote for yourself, that is
wrong. That is wrong.
In 1973, and let us get some of this on the record so that
we have some perspective, D.C. got the Home Rule Act, and you
were able to elect your first Mayor and your first City
Council. And Walter Washington transitioned from his previous
position to be that first elected Mayor.
In 1978, some of you will remember that full congressional
representation was in the form of an amendment, and that
amendment failed because you could not get, not you, the
District, but the Nation could not get the requisite number of
states to ratify it.
In 1982, voters here in the District of Columbia voted to
approve a constitution for a new state. Some of you will recall
that was called the New Columbia, and yet it was ignored by
this Congress over and over and over again. Marion Barry came
up here on this Hill so many times to make the argument for the
people of Washington that fairness has to be fair. It just
cannot be proportioned out when we feel like it.
In 1990, Congressman Walter Fauntroy, myself, Marion, Jesse
Jackson, and so many others put together Freedom Train rides
from D.C. to New England, making a stop in each city along the
way, making the case for statehood and urging Americans up and
down the coast to support it.
In 1993, I was proud, along with your current delegate, to
vote for the first D.C. statehood bill here in the Congress.
And let me just point out one thing. Not one Republican voted
for that bill. And that bill went down. It went down after a
great deal of fight by a vote of 153 to 277.
In 2016, D.C. voters voted to approve a statehood
referendum. The people voted, 86 percent, to approve that. This
Congress ignored it.
In 2020, in 116th Congress, H.R. 51 became the next
statehood bill. It was defeated. And the following year, in the
117th Congress, we came back with the same bill. It was
defeated again without any votes or representation from the
other side.
So, at some point in time, you have to ask yourself, if
this is so partisan, what is the issue? Now, some people argue
the issue is racial. I know I should not say that, but I am
going to say it because people feel that way. They think that
if this was any other population, majority population, that
this would not be taking place. We all know that it is
partisan, even though some people will say it is not partisan
because the District tends to vote Democratic.
So, let us not play games here. Let us be honest and true.
And if we are true about making sure that Americans, no matter
where they are, but especially here in this district, have
rights that others do not have, stop treating the District of
Columbia like a donor state. They donate their taxes. They
donate their military officers. They donate their brain trust.
And they give of themselves. And at some point in time, we, as
a body, have to give back.
Taxation without representation is as wrong today as it was
when the Boston Tea Party exploded over the same issue.
Ms. Bowser. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank
you, Mr. Mfume.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Biggs from Arizona.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, all of
the witnesses, for coming in today.
Attorney General Schwalb, do you remember the case State of
Maryland and District of Columbia v. Engage Armament, LLC, et
cetera?
Mr. Schwalb. I do.
Mr. Biggs. And in that case, just for anybody who is not
aware of it, the District joined Maryland and sued three
Maryland firearm retailers for allegedly making straw
purchases. In your lawsuit, you engaged two outside counsel.
One firm, I think it is called Everytown Law and another was
Perkins Coie. Do you remember that?
Mr. Schwalb. I do.
Mr. Biggs. And how much did you pay Perkins Coie, and how
much did you pay Everytown Law, sir?
Mr. Schwalb. Both of those outside firms are on a pro bono
basis, so no money has been paid to them.
Mr. Biggs. You did not pay them anything? Okay. You know,
that lawsuit was baseless, right? You would agree with that now
after you have read the verdict of the district court. And I am
going to go through that with you pretty clearly.
Mr. Schwalb. Well, Mr. Biggs, as you know, that case has
been dismissed and is on appeal. And given the fact that----
Mr. Biggs. Right.
Mr. Schwalb [continuing]. It is still part of active
litigation.
Mr. Biggs. You do not want to talk about it. I do not blame
you.
Mr. Schwalb. I am not going to talk about the merits while
it is in active litigation.
Mr. Biggs. Right. I do not blame you for not wanting to
talk about it because I go through here, and at least ten
times, the judge said there is absolutely no basis. There is no
factual basis for bringing that lawsuit. So, that is pretty
damning. And not only that, under Maryland law, and basically
Arizona is the same way, most cases is every bit of deference
is going to be given to a party who is defending against a
motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment, right? I
mean, that is normal. That is Maryland law, right?
Mr. Schwalb. Yes, that is the standard.
Mr. Biggs. Yes. And in this particular case, the judge made
some very interesting comments. This is what he said.
``Ordinarily, leave to amend in Maryland is freely granted,
particularly when a case is in an early stage, unless leave to
amend would be futile or inappropriate for other reasons. This
case presents such an occasion to deny the request.'' I do not
know. I used to practice. I used to do a lot of trial work. I
do not remember ever seeing something like that. That is pretty
damning stuff from the court.
And then the judge goes on to say, ``At bottom in the
court's view, the plaintiffs hope to use the discovery process
in order to construct a case.'' And the court correctly notes,
``Through that discovery, the plaintiff wants to find
sufficient facts to state a viable claim for relief.'' But
right then, in the complaint, failed to state any claim for
relief.
And so, the question that is begged here is why wasn't a
rule 11 sanction brought against you and the other plaintiffs'
attorneys? Was a rule 11 sanction brought?
Mr. Schwalb. No, sir. And while we obviously disagree with
that ruling, we are pursuing an appeal, as the rules allow us
to do, and I am confident that we will get it turned around at
the court of appeals.
Mr. Biggs. Of course, you were confident you were going to
win the case when you did not have jack squat. But you went
after three Federal Firearms Licenses (FFL)s because you had a
political agenda. There were no sanctions. Did you have to pay
attorney's fees or costs? Were any of those ordered? I did not
see them ordered in here. I assume they were not ordered.
Mr. Schwalb. There were no sanctions. There were no costs.
Mr. Biggs. So----
Mr. Schwalb. The important thing is we were working as hard
as we can, in this city, to keep illegal guns out of the
District of Columbia.
Mr. Biggs. No, no. The important thing is----
Mr. Schwalb. And the way in which----
Mr. Biggs. No, no, sir. No, listen to me for a second.
Mr. Schwalb [continuing]. Guns come into our District.
Mr. Biggs. Listen to me for a second.
Mr. Schwalb. Too often is----
Mr. Biggs. The important thing----
Mr. Schwalb [continuing]. Straw purchases.
Mr. Biggs. Mr. Attorney General Schwalb, the important
thing was that you were using your office to abuse FFLs because
you do not like them. And that is the deal. Because, as the
judge said, you basically did not have a case whatsoever, but
you decided to use your power and your authority and make the
process the punishment. That is what you chose to do.
Mr. Schwalb. Respectfully, sir, that----
Mr. Biggs. That is what you chose to do.
Mr. Schwalb. That is not----
Mr. Biggs. And there is no question before you.
Mr. Schwalb. That is not true, sir.
Mr. Biggs. That is exactly what this says, and that is a
shame because that is an abuse of power right there. And so,
you come in here, sit here, and tell us all this righteousness
about power, but I am telling you, when you are using the
process itself to go after political opponents, which is
exactly what you are doing, this is a philosophical issue that
you have. And you used them and you went and you used two firms
that you know and I know that that is their motive. The law
firm, Everytown, that is their job. That is what they want to
do. They solicit funds to go out there and sue FFLs because
they do not want the Second Amendment to even exist. Read their
statements. And you joined with them.
Mayor Bowser, it is good to see you again. I know you do
have a tough job. I am the first to admit it.
Ms. Bowser. Thank you.
Mr. Biggs. But it is good to see you again.
Ms. Bowser. Thank you.
Mr. Biggs. And I am out of time, so I cannot ask any
questions, but I do have some things I want to--Mr. Chairman, I
have some UCs.
Chairman Comer. Yes, proceed.
Mr. Biggs. First of all, I wanted to introduce the
memorandum decision and order from the case State of Maryland,
D.C., v. Engage Armament, et al.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Biggs. The letter from the Committee to Hon. Brian L.
Schwalb dated June 11, 2025----
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Biggs [continuing]. Which we are still waiting for
answers for.
This one, ``Mayor Muriel Bowser says Trump's surge of
Federal law enforcement has lowered crime in D.C.''
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Biggs. ``Trump's D.C. crime crackdown busts another
alleged Tren de Aragua gang member. Make D.C. safe again.''
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Biggs. This one, ``Trump's executive orders target D.C.
crime as the city hits 12 days without a homicide.''
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Biggs. This one is ``Radical D.C. officials treated
officers like crap, police leader says.''
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Biggs. ``Murdered congressional intern's mom says Trump
should take over Washington, D.C.''
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Biggs. ``Yes, prosecuting and arresting criminals would
have immediate impact on D.C.'s crime.''
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Brown from Ohio.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our
witnesses for being here today.
So, we want to talk about abuse of power, huh? Well, let me
start here. President Trump's only expertise on crime is
committing it, not preventing it; enabling it, not ending it;
and covering it up, not cleaning it up. He is a convicted
felon. He has illegally frozen Federal funding. He has
assaulted the rule of law at every turn. He has consistently
violated constitutionally protected due process rights. And he
has unleashed a corporate agenda to enrich himself and his
wealthy donors.
Right now, as we sit here, Trump is bending over backward
to protect Ghislaine Maxwell, a convicted sex trafficker who
preyed on children and blocking the release of the Epstein
files to shield criminals from accountability.
In the last ten months alone, he has pardoned countless
white-collar fraudsters who ripped off the American people,
often conveniently, after they cozied up to him. And let us not
forget, Trump pardoned every single person charged or convicted
in the January 6 insurrection. That included 172 people who
pleaded guilty, pleaded guilty, to assaulting law enforcement.
It included dozens of repeat offenders, people with prior
convictions for rape, manslaughter, and sexual abuse of a
minor. And it included at least ten individuals who have
already, already been rearrested for new crimes.
So spare us. Spare us the talk of law and order because
under Trump, that only means lawlessness for his friends and
punishment for everyone else.
Now, let me be clear. I care deeply about public safety in
my district, in every district across America. Every person
deserves to feel safe in their neighborhood, at their job, and
their school. And if I may, there is some good news. Violent
crime has been consistently decreasing across America. And yes,
we have more work to do, but we also know what works to keep it
that way.
So, if you are really serious about public safety, let us
increase funding for violence prevention programs. Let us pass
commonsense gun safety bills. And let us provide additional
Federal resources to our local partners to recruit and train
local law enforcement.
But what has this Administration done instead? Rolled back
gun safety reforms, gutted DOJ programs tasked with addressing
violent crime, and blocked funding to local law enforcement and
community violence prevention agencies like the one you served,
Mr. Jackson.
Earlier this year, Cleveland Peacemakers Alliance, a local
violence prevention organization, had its community violence
prevention grant funding frozen by this Administration. Mr.
Jackson, I know you cannot speak to this specific grant, but
can you talk about the importance of grants funded through the
Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and how freezes like this
impact public safety?
Mr. Jackson. Well, we know from Cleveland Peacemakers to
Advance Peace to Safe Streets Baltimore to Life Camp in New
York City that these organizations that are doing violence
intervention work are saving lives every day. And every study
we have seen to focus on how impactful community violence
intervention has been has shown promise.
But this Trump Administration has not stopped at
terminating violence intervention programs. They also
terminated $1 billion in youth mental health resources that we
know can help our youth that are in crisis before a school
shooting, before a suicide attempt, before any violent harm.
They have also made major cuts to the ATF. And we know that the
ATF now has lost two-thirds of its inspectors, so they do not
even have the capacity to inspect gun stores to decide whether
or not they are violating the law.
He also reversed the zero-tolerance policy for gun dealers
where they violate the law, they lose their license. And even
if you go to the Department of Justice website, there is an
invite for previous violating gun stores to come back and get
their licenses again.
So, he is not only defunding programs that we know are
preventing violence that are working with youth that are
working in schools and working with homes. He is also stripped
and dismantled and defunded Federal law enforcement to keep
guns out of our communities.
Ms. Brown. Thank you so much. Instead of funding proven
public safety solutions, my Republican colleagues want to pull
political stunts like weaponizing the National Guard against
the American people. Let us be clear. That only sidelines local
law enforcement, sows chaos, and distracts from real
emergencies. So, yes, it is political theater, but worse, it is
dangerous political theater that puts communities more at risk,
not less.
Chairman Comer. All right. The Chair recognizes Ms. Mace
from South Carolina.
Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
The government of the District of Columbia under the
leadership sitting in front of us today has become a poster
child for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and gender
madness. This has led to government--Mr. Chairman, this is not
a concert. This audience can just settle down.
Chairman Comer. Yes, stop the clock.
Ms. Mace. I want to reclaim my time.
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady is right. Under the Rules of
the House, the Chairman is responsible for maintaining order,
preserving decorum in the committee room. I expect audience
members to be respectful of the Committee. So.
Ms. Mace. I would like to reclaim my time too, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Comer. You reclaim, absolutely. Ms. Mace.
Ms. Mace. This has led to government-sanctioned racial
discrimination and the erasure of women. Article 1, section 8,
clause 17 provides Congress plenary authority over the District
of Columbia. Using this authority today, I will be introducing
the No DEI in D.C. Act. This bill will rip the DEI and gender
bender nonsense out of the D.C. government root and branch and
restore common sense and equal treatment under the law.
As the individuals charged with writing D.C. laws, signing
D.C. laws, and enforcing D.C.'s laws, we have some questions
for you on the meanings of some of the curious terms we have
found in the D.C. Code. My first question for Mayor Bowser, it
is yes or no. The D.C. Code makes numerous references to
``structural or institutional racism.'' Do you believe the D.C.
government is structurally or institutionally racist, yes or
no? Yes or no? Is D.C. government racist, institutionally
racist, yes or no?
Ms. Bowser. Well----
Ms. Mace. All right. You cannot answer the question. So, my
next question for Mayor Bowser, since you are going to sit
there and placate or just be quiet, in section 7----
Ms. Bowser. I forgot to push the button.
Ms. Mace [continuing]. 1234.02 of D.C. Code, you use the
phrase ``child welfare involved birthing people,'' child
welfare involved birthing people. Can you explain to me what
this means?
Ms. Bowser. I am not that familiar with that part of the
code.
Ms. Mace. Okay. So, you do not know. In section 7-1234.02
of D.C. Code, you use the phrase ``justice-involved
incarcerated and homeless birthing people and their non-
birthing partners.'' Can you explain to this Committee what
that means?
Ms. Bowser. I, again, I would have to see----
Ms. Mace. You do not know.
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. The whole section.
Ms. Mace. You are literally the Mayor of D.C., and you do
not know your own code of laws.
Ms. Bowser. Well, I do not know them----
Ms. Mace. All right. One thing we noticed----
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. Verbatim.
Ms. Mace [continuing]. The D.C. Code struggles to define is
the term ``woman.'' So, Mayor Bowser, what is a woman?
Ms. Bowser. I am a woman. Are you a woman?
Ms. Mace. A hundred percent.
Ms. Bowser. Okay.
Ms. Mace. A hundred percent.
Ms. Bowser. I am a woman. You are looking at one.
Ms. Mace. Okay, good. You actually, in section 3-703 of the
D.C. Code, you use the phrase ``the intersectionality of gender
and race to create unique dynamics and effects.'' Can you
explain what this means to the Committee?
Ms. Bowser. Where is that, ma'am?
Ms. Mace. Section 3-703 of the D.C. Code, do you know what
that means?
Ms. Bowser. Could you give me----
Ms. Mace. No, you do not know what that means.
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. The title of the----
Ms. Mace. So, chapter 14D of the D.C. Code establishes----
Ms. Bowser. Mr. Chairman?
Ms. Mace [continuing]. The commission----
Ms. Bowser. I am happy to answer questions, but I cannot--
--
Ms. Mace. Mr. Chairman, I am going to reclaim my time. This
is not her time. It is my time. You can be quiet as I ask you
questions.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes----
Ms. Bowser. Ms. Mace.
Ms. Mace. And then you can answer them.
Chairman Comer. Ms. Mace.
Ms. Mace. And then you can answer them.
Chairman Comer. Ms. Mace.
Ms. Bowser. If you would give, if you----
Ms. Mace. Mr. Chairman, this is my time, not hers. I would
like to reclaim my time.
Ms. Bowser. Let us make good use of the time, Ms. Mace.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes----
Ms. Mace. I am making very good use of my time.
Ms. Bowser. And so, if----
Chairman Comer [continuing]. Ms. Mace.
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. There is----
Chairman Comer. Ms. Mace has the floor.
Ms. Mace. And you are making my point. You are the Mayor of
D.C., and you do not even know your own code of laws. What is a
birthing person?
Ms. Bowser. I would assume it is someone who gives birth.
Ms. Mace. All right. Why don't you use--are these women?
Are these moms? Do you think it is appropriate to call them
birthing person? Can a man birth a person, be a birthing
person?
Ms. Bowser. Well, that is what I would call it, but I do
not write all the laws, and I am not familiar with every
section.
Ms. Mace. Can men get pregnant?
Ms. Bowser. No.
Ms. Mace. Can men become women?
Ms. Bowser. Can a man become a woman?
Ms. Mace. Yes, can a man become a woman?
Ms. Bowser. If you are--Ms. Mace.
Ms. Mace. Yes or no. Can a man become a woman, yes or no?
Ms. Bowser. Ms. Mace, I am not here----
Ms. Mace. Okay. My next question----
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. To talk about that.
Ms. Mace [continuing]. Chapter 14D of the D.C. Code
establishes the Commission on Reparations and a reparations
fund to provide eligible African Americans monetary reparations
or other forms of redress. Is it the position of D.C.,
government benefits should be provided to individuals on the
basis of race?
Ms. Bowser. I believe that the legislation requires a
study.
Ms. Mace. Okay. I am asking you. Is it the position of the
D.C. government that government benefits should be provided on
the basis of race is the question?
Ms. Bowser. If you are referring to that legislation, I
believe it requires a study.
Ms. Mace. Okay. I am asking you a question. Do you believe
that government benefits should be given out on the basis of
race? That is the question. This is the third time I am asking.
Ms. Bowser. We have any number of benefits programs, and
eligibility is----
Ms. Mace. Okay.
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. Established----
Ms. Mace. You are not answering any of----
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. Per program.
Ms. Mace [continuing]. These questions. I will give it to
you. You are slick.
In section 2-1383 of the D.C. Code, you use the phrase
``social value of the LGBTQ community business economy to the
District.'' Can you explain what this means to the Committee?
Ms. Bowser. It means that lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender (LGBT) businesses provide economic benefit to the
District's economy.
Ms. Mace. Do you think all businesses provide economic
benefit to the D.C. economy?
Ms. Bowser. They should, or they would be out of business.
Ms. Mace. Yes, of course.
All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Stansbury from New Mexico.
Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, good morning, everyone. I
just want to take a moment to decompress after that. And I do
want to just take a moment of personal privilege for our
witnesses and for the members of the public who are here today
to apologize for the behavior of my colleagues----
Ms. Bowser. Thank you.
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. For the disrespectful
language----
Ms. Bowser. Thank you.
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. That has been deployed for the
personal assaults on your character and professionalism. We
know that you are representing the people of this city and
doing an excellent job, and we support you.
Ms. Bowser. Thank you.
Ms. Stansbury. Now, I want to turn to where the Ranking
Member went at the beginning of this hearing and talk about the
real crime wave here in D.C. I think it is very demonstrable
and the data shows that the largest crime wave that we have had
over the last nine months began on January 20. And the
epicenter of that crime wave, one might call it a white-collar,
or in this case, an orange-collar crime wave, is the White
House because we have seen a slew of illegal firings that have
resulted in millions of Americans being without vital programs,
the withholding of millions of dollars of funds, violations of
the Constitution, rule of law, separation of powers, due
process rights, illegal arrests, illegal deportations, hundreds
of lawsuits, grift that has resulted in billions of dollars in
crypto schemes lining the pockets of the President and his
family, government contracts to his friends, and an epic cover-
up of the largest-known sex trafficking scandal in American
history with the Director of the FBI lying under oath in this
chamber just yesterday.
And I just want to say this, that it is a felony under the
U.S. Code to lie under oath in front of Congress. So, if you
want to talk about crime in D.C., then look no further than
your own damn hearings. Let us talk about that. That is the
real crime wave.
Now, Mr. Jackson, I really appreciate you bringing forward
as part of this discussion this morning the impact that it has
had on real people in the community because I think for people
who do not live in Washington, D.C., who have never stepped
foot in front of City Hall, gone to a City Council meeting,
have never met with the Mayor in her chambers, have never
talked to the people of Washington, D.C. They do not understand
how this is impacting the communities who live here of having
this occupation in their midst.
And this is not about public safety. You know, last week we
heard our colleagues accusing us of not wanting to solve
crimes, not wanting to address public safety issues. I mean, I
am trying to swear less, but that is just total bullshit. I
mean, that is just a lie. That is just not true. We care a lot
about addressing public safety. It is one of our top
priorities.
But that is not really what this is about because if this
was really about addressing public safety, you would not have
had the Vice President and Stephen Miller walking into Union
Station, making fun of, deriding, and putting down the people
of D.C. while they are deploying National Guardsmen from across
the south to stand on street corners to talk to their friends
and be on their iPhones all day. I mean, I want to be real.
Like, this is not law enforcement.
I come from a veteran family. I support our law
enforcement. I support our military. But this is not about law
enforcement. And if you talk to any cop on the D.C. streets
right now, you know, thank them for their service because in
addition to actually dealing with real crime on the streets as
trained law enforcement professionals, they have had to spend
the last month dealing with the bullshit of the Trump
Administration and a bunch of people who are standing around in
the way of them actually doing their jobs. So, if this
Administration actually wants to address public safety issues,
stop holding the city of Washington, D.C., hostage.
Now, this is just exhausting to listen to this all day. And
so, I would love to hear from you, Mr. Jackson. You have shared
already this morning. With my remaining time, I would love to
hear from you what you think Congress can do to help support
the communities that you work with in D.C.
Mr. Jackson. Just first of all, it is devastating what is
happening in our communities. The first day of the D.C.
takeover, we had to go into our communities and teach young
people how to navigate law enforcement when their rights might
be violated. Instead of teaching them about going to school and
studying math and playing sports, they are trying to figure out
how to navigate masked agents raiding their neighborhoods
multiple times a day. Elderly folks that are getting arrested
for petty crimes, 55 and plus, are now coming to us and saying,
what can I do when these masked agents run into my
neighborhood?
And that is not how we solve crime. We do not scare and
incarcerate our way out of this issue. We tried that in the
1990s. It failed. The way that we address a public health
crisis is we invest in prevention strategies. We look upstream
to keep guns from pouring into our communities. You know, 95
percent of guns in this city come from outside of the District.
We only have one gun store, but yet the FBI Director is
bragging about apprehending guns in D.C. while President
Trump's son is literally profiting with a smarter gun, buy a
gun, smart gun company.
And so, what we really need in this moment is for Federal
Government to do its job to keep guns from getting into our
communities by cutting down on gun traffickers, by going after
rogue gun dealers, by holding the gun manufacturers accountable
and being tough on crime, specifically on those who are
profiting off of the pain and death in our neighborhoods.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Jackson.
Chairman Comer. Thank you. Time has expired.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Cloud from Texas. Oh, is it Palmer
or Cloud? Cloud from Texas.
Mr. Cloud. Oh, the great State of Texas, as we like to say.
Thank you for being here. Thank you, Chairman, for holding
this Committee [sic].
There is a lot of consternation today about President Trump
deploying the National Guard to help crack down on crime. I can
remember it was not that long ago where the Biden
Administration had deployed the National Guard to block access
to the people's Capitol. I would much more be in favor of
helping solve the crime situation here in D.C. There did not
seem to be a lot of consternation coming from the left during
COVID when our Capitol was surrounded by barbed wire, and the
National Guard were camped out.
Over the last three weeks, it is pretty undeniable. I mean,
I remember what D.C. looked like, and it was just a couple
months ago when Trump was elected. You can go by Union Station.
There were homeless camps camped out. We had two staff members
who had to deal with situations at gunpoint where they were
accosted at gunpoint. We had another staff member who had to
move out of their apartment after being threatened. I took a
train into Union Station and missed being present for someone
getting shot. My chief of staff at the time was sitting out
front and saw it happen, missed it by three minutes myself.
You know, and you look at the stats of what has happened,
and it is important to, you know, there is a lot of comparing
today apples to oranges and trying to, you know, you put up
charts, and the numbers do not--but if you compare the 3-weeks
this time to the 3-weeks last time, it is dramatic, 38 percent
decrease in homicides, 44 percent decrease in sex abuse. I
mean, this is extraordinary. If those trends were to continue,
that is 50 people walking around the city alive, 50 families
that have not been broken up over the course of a year. That is
extraordinary.
Chairman Mendelson, can you not agree that D.C. is a safer
place than it was five weeks ago?
Mr. Mendelson. There is no question, but if you look at the
data, the crime statistics, that there was a reduction in crime
during the surge.
Mr. Cloud. Yes, okay.
Mr. Mendelson. But as we have said, if you want to add 500
officers working with our MPD, of course we are going to see a
reduction in violence. That is not the same as ICE raids,
masked men.
Mr. Cloud. It is important----
Mr. Mendelson. It is not the same as the National Guard,
who is landscaping on the Mall.
Mr. Cloud. Do I need to go back to my National Guard point?
You did not have a problem when the National Guard was blocking
access to the Nation's capital, prohibiting people from coming
here. And to that point, D.C. is different than other cities.
D.C. is unique. Our Founders--there was mention of the Boston
Tea Party. The ones who were actually there wrote the
Constitution and said that D.C. should not be a state because
it houses the Federal Government. And it would be important for
a state not to give undue influence over the Federal
Government. We saw this during COVID----
Mr. Mendelson. If you read the Federalist Papers----
Mr. Cloud. Excuse me. I am talking.
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. They say nothing about----
Mr. Cloud. Excuse me, sir.
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. Denying us the franchise.
Mr. Cloud. Sir. On September 20, Capitol Hill Baptist
Church was denied a permit to worship outside because of COVID-
19, yet we had a number of Black Lives Matter protests in this
community. The concern I have is, when Washington, D.C., access
to the Nation's capital is prohibited or curtailed in any way.
Could you explain to me, Mayor, why the church was not able to
have a worship service outside, but yet the Black Lives
protests were being able to go on?
Ms. Bowser. You are talking about the public health
emergency?
Mr. Cloud. I am talking about during COVID, Black Lives
Matter protests continued to happen in Washington, D.C., with
no retribution from the city, yet churches were not allowed to
worship or worship outside even.
Ms. Bowser. Yes, I think that matter was litigated, and it
is resolved.
Mr. Cloud. Well, yes, COVID is over, but the point is is
that you have a city basically defining who has access to the
Nation's capital. And there were times where there were going
to be a Trump rally, and somehow restaurants got closed down
that weekend and those sorts of things. Why was this church not
allowed to worship outside, yet Black Lives Matter protests
were encouraged by the city?
Ms. Bowser. Well, my recollection is that----
Mr. Cloud. I mean, you went as far as to paint Black Lives
Matters across the street. This is----
Ms. Bowser. Yes, you--I wanted to answer your question. My
recollection, and why I do not remember the specifics of that
case, is that it fell under our large gathering prohibition in
the early stages of COVID. When we----
Mr. Cloud. But Black Lives Matters were okay? Were they not
large enough? They were not violent enough?
Ms. Bowser. You are probably referring to----
Mr. Cloud. Or too violent maybe?
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. Outdoor First Amendment gatherings
that were not----
Mr. Cloud. A worship service falls under the First
Amendment.
Ms. Bowser. And as I mentioned, this question has been
litigated.
Mr. Cloud. I only have a couple of minutes left and so I
will just point out that the billion dollars you are asking for
is in the CR that is on the House Floor this week. And everyone
over there, I would encourage you to encourage the people up
here to vote for that because if you want your dollars, they
can help us provide it for you.
Ms. Bowser. And Congressman, might I just add----
Mr. Cloud. My time is up.
Ms. Bowser. And I just, and I hope that that is the case,
that the Fiscal Year 2025 fix is attached to the CR We worked
very hard with the Administration and with you, Mr. Comer, to
make sure that the anomaly was included moving forward in 2026.
But the House, following Senator Collins' bill in the Senate,
can still fix the Fiscal Year 2025 CR problem that was $1.1
billion. And it is not too late, and it will help us balance.
Mr. Cloud. The CR extends funding that our folks here have
already voted for it. It also adds security features----
Ms. Bowser. Thank you.
Mr. Cloud [continuing]. And then adds that for D.C. So.
Ms. Bowser. Got it.
Mr. Cloud. I expect unanimous support over there, right?
Okay.
Chairman Comer. Thank you.
Mr. Bell. Mr. Chair, I request----
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Frost----
Mr. Bell [continuing]. Unanimous consent.
Chairman Comer [continuing]. From Florida.
Mr. Bell. Mr. Chair, I request----
Chairman Comer. Oh, Mr. Bell.
Mr. Bell. Thank you. I request unanimous consent to enter
into the record this August 20, 2025, article from the AP News
titled, ``U.S. Attorney will no longer bring felony charges
against people for carrying rifles or shotguns in D.C.,'' which
shows that U.S. Attorney----
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Bell [continuing]. Jeanine Pirro is outright ignoring
gun crimes and making the city less safe.
Ms. Simon. Mr. Chair, I have UCs. May I be recognized.
Chairman Comer. Yes, Ms. Simon.
Ms. Simon. Thank you, sir.
I request unanimous consent to enter into the record on
April 24, 2025, an article from Reuters that was titled,
``Exclusive: U.S. Department Of Justice cuts grants valued at
$811 million, people and records say,'' which shows how the
President's DOJ cuts will affect police and correctional
facility funding.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
And I have a unanimous consent request. This is the CR, and
it does restore that $1 billion in funding. So, we will be
voting on that tomorrow. I am going to vote for it. I have been
very vocal in trying to get that included. I know that my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have mentioned it
several times. So, there are a lot of people in Washington,
D.C.--I assume this is on TV in Washington, D.C. Are you all
going to vote for it tomorrow? I mean, that is a question I
think the people in Washington, D.C., especially the people
that are testifying here today would probably like to know, but
I am going to vote for it. So.
Ms. Simon. Mr. Chair?
Chairman Comer. Without objection, we will enter that into
the record.
Ms. Simon. Mr. Chair, I have another UC, sir.
Chairman Comer. Yes, go ahead.
Ms. Simon. Thank you, sir.
I request unanimous consent to enter into the record this
September 7, 2025, an article from The Hill entitled, ``Most
oppose Trump deploying National Guard to D.C., other cities:
poll.'' Say that----
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Simon. 57 percent of respondents said that they are
against Donald Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard--
--
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Simon [continuing]. Into the Nation's capital. Thank
you, sir. I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Frost from
Florida.
Mr. Frost. I yield ten seconds to Mr. Mfume.
Chairman Comer. To Mr. Mfume?
Mr. Frost. Yes.
Mr. Mfume. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I am sorry that my colleague from Texas has left the room.
I just want to say that he pointed out in his remarks that the
Founders of the Constitution said that D.C. should be a Federal
district and never a state, as if they were right. And I would
just simply call to his attention those same persons at that
same Constitutional Convention and for 200 years afterwards
said that Black people in this country were property, not
citizens. And then the Dred Scott decision said that we were
three-fifths of an individual. So, just because they said it
clearly does not make it right, and it does not make it right
with D.C.
I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Mr. Frost?
Mr. Frost. Yes, no, I really appreciate you bringing that
up. And also they are wrong about what is in the Constitution
in the first place. The Constitution does not say that we
cannot make Washington, D.C., a state. It does not say that.
You claim to know the Constitution, and you have not read it.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that we cannot do that.
What it says is there should be a Federal district. And the
legislation put forth by Representative Norton and supported by
House Democrats would make the Federal district encompass the
places that we work, the White House, the U.S. Congress, the
Supreme Court, and not include the 700,000 people who live in
D.C. who pay taxes but do not have proper representation.
You know, usually, when we are talking about D.C. in this
Committee, you know, usually, we have just folks who can watch
in the audience. But I am happy that today is different because
we have representatives from the District's local government
and Mr. Greg Jackson, Jr. here to give voice to what is going
on in Washington, D.C.
Greg, you called the District home for decades. You bring
the perspective of the D.C.'s people to this Committee. You
bring years of expertise and experience in crime reduction to
this hearing, and of course, a survivor of gun violence
yourself. Before President Trump started playing dictator with
the people of D.C., he started dismantling important community
safety and violence crime prevention programs, most notably the
White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, not a partisan
office, an office that worked at reducing crime in all of our
districts. As a former Deputy Director of that office, can you
describe some of the important work that has stopped due to
this Administration?
Mr. Jackson. Yes. One of the most critical things was we
were coordinating the response to mass shootings and
concentrations of violence, and so without that coordination,
cities, states, and local jurisdictions are on their own to
navigate these mass tragedies. We implemented 54 executive
actions, including adding $2 billion to the Victims of Crime
Act Fund. And I will note that on August 2025, multiple states,
I believe 24 states, sued this Administration for withholding
$1 billion in resources for victims of violent crime. But we
were the ones that were pushing more resources to victims.
We also fully implemented the Bipartisan Safer Communities
Act that each party came together on and voted for in 2022.
And then lastly, we worked directly with local leaders to
make sure that we are elevating strategies that work across the
country.
Mr. Frost. You also prevented serious crimes by ensuring
that we prevent access to illegal guns, correct?
Mr. Jackson. Correct. We partnered with agencies to do
that.
Mr. Frost. You know, between 2017 and 2021, over 11,000
criminal firearms were recovered in D.C. Most of them, as you
noted before, come from outside Washington, D.C. And an
interesting statistic, too, is a third of those guns traveled
over 300 miles, over 300 miles to come here. Do you want to
know where they came from? South Carolina, North Carolina,
Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Ohio. These are the
states where these guns are coming from, states that do not
have good gun laws, states that are not keeping their people
safe, and as a result and byproduct, have wreaked havoc on the
people of Washington, D.C.
Trump's total disregard for American safety is obvious from
his current budget requests. Having already fired a majority of
the Federal gun dealers inspectors, now he wants to slash
another billion dollars that could be used to crack down on
these guns. Congressional Republicans are also doing their part
to make us less safe. They are trying to remove restrictions on
silencers, trying to remove restrictions on rifles, even on
firearms designed to look like everyday objects. And we even
know that they are insincere in this because I just listed
states that have some of the highest murder rates in the
Nation.
I asked this question last time and I will ask it again.
Where is their bill? If this is the way to end crime and this
is the thing everybody wants, why don't they have a bill to
invite the military to occupy their states which have the
highest crime rates in this nation? They are not going to do it
because they do not want the military to occupy their
communities in their states because they know it is a load of
crap, and they are insincere about it.
I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Palmer from
Alabama.
Mr. Frost. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent request.
Chairman Comer. Okay. Who said that? I am looking.
Mr. Frost. Frost.
Chairman Comer. Oh yes, Mr. Frost.
Mr. Frost. This is a Washington Post piece by E.J. Dionne,
Jr., ``The good news about murder. Homicides are way down. What
happened, what we can learn, and how progressives became crime
fighters.''
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Palmer from Alabama.
Mr. Palmer. Attorney General Schwalb, are you aware that
the FBI requires that all states and local governments, police
departments report crime to the National Incident-Based
Reporting System?
Mr. Schwalb. I think that is correct, sir.
Mr. Palmer. Okay. Washington, D.C., has not done a good job
at that. As a matter of fact, you have been accused of cooking
the books. And it is not just a problem in Washington.
Mr. Chairman, when this went into effect, Illinois only
reported 30.6 percent of their police departments reported; New
Jersey, only 28.7 percent; New York, 13.8 percent; Maryland,
9.5 percent; California, 1.9 percent. I would argue that when
you are presenting crime statistics, that these are highly
suspect because state and local police departments are not
reporting the data. We have known this for a long time that the
homicide rates are under-reported. The FBI has made that clear.
I want to move to something else. We do have a crime surge.
Violent crime, property crime, particularly vehicle theft.
Washington, D.C. has a truancy problem. Almost 33 percent of
the students are chronically truant, second only to Baltimore.
What are you doing to resolve that, Mayor Bowser? And I want to
add that 18,000 truancy cases went uninvestigated over the last
three full school years.
Ms. Bowser. Well, first and foremost----
Mr. Palmer. I am just asking, are you doing anything?
Ms. Bowser. Yes.
Mr. Palmer. What?
Ms. Bowser. We have in place a regime where schools report,
and we have most recently updated it to focus more on our human
services department, a department that----
Mr. Palmer. Ma'am?
Ms. Bowser. Yes?
Mr. Palmer. When I am asking you about investigating
truancy cases, that means going out and finding the kid and
getting them back in the classroom.
Ms. Bowser. Oh, we do that. The police do that every day.
Mr. Palmer. Okay. Eighteen thousand went uninvestigated.
Ms. Bowser. No.
Mr. Palmer. Half of your carjackings are by juveniles.
Ms. Bowser. So, if you are----
Mr. Palmer. You have got five times more middle school
students truant than you did a decade ago. That is a crisis. Do
you believe that kids that are chronically truant are going to
wind up becoming dropouts or undereducated, that it might lead
to an increase in crime in that population?
Ms. Bowser. We think the best place for kids is in school.
Mr. Palmer. No, no, no. No, no, no. How does it impact
their life going forward? Because I am a big believer in
getting kids out of failing schools. My wife and I support two
private schools that are targeting inner city kids. These kids
do not show up truant. They come to class. They graduate. They
get jobs. They go to college. What are you doing to find these
kids? And I am not talking about giving them a free lunch. I am
talking about getting them back in the classroom. I mean, you
said something about the National Guard mowing lawn. Maybe the
National Guard ought to be helping find these kids and get them
into school.
Mr. Mendelson. Congressman, if I may, the Council has had
hearings at least once a year. We have a hearing scheduled next
month.
Mr. Palmer. Well, it is not doing any good.
Mr. Mendelson. With regard to attendance and what we are
doing----
Mr. Palmer. Yes.
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. To reduce truancy----
Mr. Palmer. Yes.
Mr. Mendelson. I agree with you that----
Mr. Palmer. How about all these kids that you have already
lost?
Mr. Mendelson. I agree with you----
Mr. Palmer. Because you sat on your butt and did not do
anything about it?
Mr. Mendelson. Well.
Mr. Palmer. Eighteen thousand went uninvestigated.
Mr. Mendelson. I agree with you that attendance is
important, and truancy is a problem. Truancy is actually down.
It is down 22 percent since school year 2021, 2022. And
serious----
Mr. Palmer. It is still----
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. Absenteeism, which is 30
percent----
Mr. Palmer [continuing]. Almost 33 percent.
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. Of days is down 43 percent
since----
Mr. Palmer. It is down five percent in Baltimore----
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. School year 2021, 2022.
Mr. Palmer [continuing]. From 54 percent to 49 percent.
That is half your kids.
Mr. Mendelson. So, it is down below that at this point. We
get a report every fall. I do not know if you have seen the
reports from the Attorney General, from Child and Family
Services.
Mr. Palmer. Let me ask the Mayor this. Do you plan to take
full advantage of the $1,700 tax credit scholarship program
that can go to scholarship-granting organizations to help kids
get into schools where they are safe and where they can learn?
Ms. Bowser. We do take advantage of the Opportunity
Scholarship Program.
Mr. Palmer. That was in the One Big Beautiful Bill, by the
way. We are committed to trying to help kids get a good
education.
Ms. Bowser. So are we.
Mr. Palmer. Well, I appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Lee from Pennsylvania.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Every single time the Republicans call one of these
overseer hearings on the District, we get the same
paternalistic, infantilizing, just racially coded drivel. We
are hearing the same old fearmongering, the same misdirection
and misinformation today, off-topic claims, including getting
rid of DEI in D.C. And it is crazy to say, because you can
introduce DEI laws, but at the end of the day, you are not
going to erase Black people from the District of Columbia or
any other place, and I just wanted to start with that. And let
us be real that is what is at the heart of all of these same
conversations that we keep having about crime and underfunded
and under-resourced Black communities while they ignore crime
in the White House and in their own houses, so I just wanted to
establish that as we go through this.
But Washington, D.C., we know, is in a unique situation.
You are especially vulnerable to Trump's power-hungry
overreach. Their elected officials do not have the same
resources and also do not get the same respect, incidentally,
from members of this panel that they would give to their own
elected officials. But you do not have the same protections,
congressional voting power or representation as other states.
That is why Trump is using D.C. as a test kitchen for all of
the horrible policies that they are cooking up.
As Members of Congress representing those other states and
cities, we need to be concerned about where he is going to
target next. And we cannot roll over, shrug our shoulders, and
say that at least the National Guardsmen are gardening or
picking up trash. We have to push back on this right now, in
this moment, before he comes for all of our districts.
To be clear, none of Trump's actions have made D.C. any
safer. And just as a reminder, crime had already been dropping
in the District without his involvement. He has been
terrorizing D.C. residents with these mass and unaccountable
Federal agents and armed National Guardsmen, armed National
Guardsmen. He has completely broken any small amount of trust
these communities have with local law enforcement. Many of the
National Guard troops are from out of state, they do not know
D.C. any more than you all do, and they do not know the
communities.
D.C. residents deserve to govern themselves and have
elected officials that are accountable to them, who uniquely
understand D.C.'s needs and their concerns. But instead,
Republicans want to micromanage people who did not vote for
them and do not support their policies.
Chairman Mendelson, we marked up 14 bills on D.C. last
week, 13 of which you opposed. Was the D.C. Council consulted
on any of those 13 bills?
Mr. Mendelson. We were not.
Ms. Lee. Have you taken any of the Members on this
Committee on a full tour of D.C. neighborhoods?
Mr. Mendelson. I have tried to meet with different Members
without success.
Ms. Lee. Yes, because we all know they talk a lot about
D.C., and they pretend to know D.C., but the reality is that
very few of them have ever left any of the communities that are
in walking distance of the Capitol itself. And I bet they
probably have never even been--I remember last term we had a
Member talk about, well, the unique part of D.C. is that you
all get access to every Member of Congress. But I have never
seen a Member of Congress in any of the carry-outs in D.C. I
have not seen them at any of the Ethiopian restaurants or at a
Caribbean joint, but that is neither here nor there.
Do you think it is necessary to work with local officials
to improve public safety?
Mr. Mendelson. Absolutely.
Ms. Lee. Has the Trump Administration reached out to the
Council to ask you all what you need to help keep D.C. safe?
Mr. Mendelson. They have not.
Ms. Lee. Crime is especially easy to exploit and use as a
political tool. Everyone, regardless of how they vote, cares
about safety. We care about community safety. That is why I
launched the Community Safety Agenda and Caucus because we have
community-based, evidence-backed solutions that we know work.
But instead of offering real solutions to prevent crime, to
respond to people in crisis and stop violence, which D.C. and
many other cities have invested in, Trump's scare tactics and
political theater only makes these communities safe.
These proactive investments in communities that actually
bring down crime, the data could not be any clearer. The
programs that work to stop crime before it can happen, rather
than just responding afterwards, yet D.C. is struggling to fund
these types of programs because you all have not restored and
passed the $1 billion that Congress owes them.
Attorney General Schwalb, you have made stable housing for
D.C. a priority, correct?
Mr. Schwalb. I have.
Ms. Lee. You have implemented programs that improve
nuisance properties, after-school programs for kids, victims of
domestic violence, and the goal to make D.C. safer, correct?
Mr. Schwalb. I have.
Ms. Lee. Mayor Bowser, we know that these litany of
proactive investments actually drive down crime. Has Trump
promised you any funding for any of these things?
Ms. Bowser. No, not yet.
Ms. Lee. Great. The cost of having a National Guard is
about $1.8 billion a day. We are up to about $40 billion, they
say about $200 billion. A bunch of these out-of-state guards
roaming the street is not a sustainable solution that is not
more sustainable than actually investing in these things,
investing in our communities. We know that if you really want
lifelong safe communities, then we need to invest the same way
that these people invest in their people, in their communities,
and their loved ones. Invest in these folks the same way, and
stop talking about crime and fearmongering these people.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Perry from
Pennsylvania.
Ms. Ansari. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent
request.
Chairman Comer. Okay. Yes. I am sorry.
Ms. Ansari. I request unanimous consent to enter into the
record the January 30, 2025, article from NPR. It is titled
``Criminal records of January 6 rioters pardoned by Trump
include rape, domestic violence,'' which highlights how
President Trump released January 6 rioters with records of
violent crime back onto our streets, including----
Chairman Comer. Without objection.
Ms. Ansari [continuing]. Sexual assault of a child,
production and possession of child pornography----
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Ansari [continuing]. Forcible rape, and conspiracy of
murder of Federal employees and threatening Federal officials.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Perry from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Perry. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mayor, thanks for being here. Thanks for being in the
arena. We know it is difficult. I think the case that we are
trying to make today is that there is a crime problem, and when
you prioritize solutions, you can actually make a difference.
And I am just going to quantify that statement because I think
that Washington, D.C., has a crime problem. Should not just say
that, but if it is true, it would be evidenced.
And the House Budget Committee reported in early 2024 that
crime surged by nearly 40 percent last year, which is 2023,
with over 270 murders, 950 carjackings, and 106 children shot,
reminiscent of the 1990s crack epidemic. And of course, you
know, you have heard the stories of staff members here. We all,
believe it or not, know somebody that had been a victim of
crime right in the Nation's capital.
As of October 2023, the violent crime rate in D.C. hit
664.2 per 100,000 people. For comparison, New York City had a
violent crime rate of 184.4 per 100,000 people, so that is
dramatic, right? 184.4 versus 664.2 for D.C., dramatic. In 2024
in Washington, D.C., 72 percent of all property crimes were
larceny, theft, and motor vehicle theft, burglaries, et cetera.
Washington, D.C., had 3,693 offenses per 100,000 people, which
would rank it first among all states in terms of highest
property crime rates per USAFacts, and that is if it were a
state.
So, that is what I am saying. I think D.C. does have a
crime problem. And look, there has been a lot of complaining
here, not necessarily by you, about, you know, what the
President's actions are, the guard being in D.C. In one case,
they are claiming that they are policing D.C. In the next case,
they are, you know, blowing the leaves away. It is one or the
other, but it is not both.
But let me ask you this. You have got a problem. You are
the Mayor. You probably know. You are living here, too. Did you
ever reach out to the President, to any President, and say,
look, we have got a problem here. Will you deploy the Guard?
Will you help us with police? We are not handling it. We cannot
fill our ranks. We cannot afford to. Have you ever done that?
Ms. Bowser. I have called on the National Guard in D.C. I
called on them during COVID. I have called on them in other
weather emergencies, yes.
Mr. Perry. What about as a general--look, the crime stats I
just related to you are ongoing, right? This is not just a
surge. This is not a momentary COVID thing.
Ms. Bowser. Yes.
Mr. Perry. This is a daily thing for the people of
Washington, D.C., to endure----
Ms. Bowser. And----
Mr. Perry [continuing]. And the people of the country that
want to come to their Nation's capital who are afraid to come
to endure. So, have you ever done it on a consistent basis,
saying to the President of the United States, this is the
Nation's capital. You reside here. Can you send me the Guard to
help assist with law enforcement or assist with policing? Have
you ever done that other than episodically?
Ms. Bowser. No, I described to you the times that we have
done it. And we have----
Mr. Perry. Yes, it is just episodic. And so, my point is,
is that the problem has to be focused on, and it has to be
fixed----
Ms. Bowser. But Mr. Perry, can I answer you a different
way?
Mr. Perry. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Bowser. Because we do not regard the Guard as a law
enforcement agency.
Mr. Perry. It is not a law enforcement agency.----
Ms. Bowser. And we----
Mr. Perry. But it can assist----
Ms. Bowser. And so, we would not----
Mr. Perry [continuing]. In law enforcement.
Ms. Bowser. We would not, we would not call on them----
Mr. Perry. But you would agree----
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. To police our neighborhoods.
Mr. Perry [continuing]. That right now, crime has dropped--
--
Ms. Bowser. But let me----
Mr. Perry [continuing]. Dramatically----
Ms. Bowser. Let me finish, Mr. Perry.
Mr. Perry [continuing]. Since they have been present.
Ms. Bowser. Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Bowser. What has worked is not the National Guard in
helping enhance MPD services. What has worked is more DEA, more
FBI----
Mr. Perry. So, you are saying the Guard----
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. More law enforcement.
Mr. Perry [continuing]. Has had no impact in D.C.?
Ms. Bowser. No, what I am saying is the Guard is not, as
has been----
Mr. Perry. And how do you----
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. Described to us.
Mr. Perry. Can you quantify that? Can you quantify that?
Ms. Bowser. I cannot quantify a causal----
Mr. Perry. Okay.
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. Relationship.
Mr. Perry. You cannot quantify it, so you cannot make the
claim. But I can quantify something. Listen, I want to talk to
you about something else, which is----
Ms. Bowser. But I do want to make the point.
Mr. Perry. Let me ask you--I want to ask you this question.
I am running out of time.
Ms. Bowser. Okay.
Mr. Perry. And I want to be respectful of everybody here.
Mr. Mendelson. But I do not think the Guard has made any
arrests.
Mr. Perry. I want to ask you--so, you have employed a bunch
of traffic cameras, a whole pile of them, hundreds and hundreds
of them. Are traffic cameras for safety or for revenue
generation?
Ms. Bowser. They are for safety.
Mr. Perry. But it says here that you plan to fill a hole, a
$580 million revenue hole in your budget shortfalls using
traffic cameras, right?
Ms. Bowser. No.
Mr. Perry. You said that.
Ms. Bowser. No, what we said is that our budget includes
revenue generated from traffic cams.
Mr. Perry. Expected at $580.
Ms. Bowser. We do not----
Mr. Perry. You said this, ma'am.
Ms. Bowser. We want to drive----
Mr. Perry. It is per the Fines and Fees Justice Center. Let
me just, because I want to quantify this as well. In 2006, you
had 43 fatalities, traffic fatalities. But in 2023 and 2024,
you had 52 each of those two years. The traffic cameras are not
making your people safer, and particularly in Wards 7 and 8,
where it is predominantly a Black population, 20 percent below
the poverty line, these fines imposed on them hurt the worst
for people. So, traffic cameras and automatic traffic
enforcement, it should be about safety, but it is unfortunately
about revenue generation, and it is imposed on the people that
can least afford it in the District of Columbia, the people
that you represent.
Ms. Bowser. Well, Mr. Perry----
Mr. Perry. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance.
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. I wish that you had also pointed
to this year's traffic fatality and collision information. So,
in addition----
Mr. Perry. Ma'am, this year is not done yet.
Ms. Bowser. Well, it is trending in the right direction,
yes.
Mr. Perry. But this time last year, you were already at 52.
Ms. Bowser. Yes, but the trend is so that we would be at--
well below those numbers. And our traffic cameras are a part of
that equation. The engineering----
Mr. Perry. The traffic cameras, ma'am----
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. Fixes----
Mr. Perry [continuing]. With all due respect, you have the
worst traffic in the country by city, according to Consumer
Reports, and that includes L.A. And not allowing people to turn
right on red is a contributor to that, and then fining them,
especially in the places where people can least afford it is
grifting on the people that support your city, and it should
not be done. It should be about safety. The fourth most
populated city in the country, Hoboken, has zero cameras and
zero fatalities, ma'am.
I yield.
Chairman Comer. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Simon.
Ms. Simon. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ranking
Member.
Before my remarks, I just have a couple of questions. My
first question is to the elected AG of the District of
Columbia. Can you talk very briefly and educate all of us on
the victim services that your office provides to victims?
Mr. Schwalb. In virtually every case where we have a victim
that has been harmed by a violent crime, the specialists in our
office are working with them, not just to make sure they are
available to be witnesses in prosecution but to make sure they
access the services they need, both economic and financial
support, as well as emotional and counseling support, to make
sure they are taken care of.
Ms. Simon. And AG, would you say that your victim services
division is adequately funded?
Mr. Schwalb. We can always use more money to make sure that
we are providing that critical service, but the team I have is
doing an extraordinary job with what we have.
Ms. Simon. And what you all provide is not only protection
for witnesses. Is that correct?
Mr. Schwalb. We certainly do more than just protecting the
witnesses, yes.
Ms. Simon. Is it also making sure that victims of domestic
violence have opportunities to leave their abusers and save
their own lives?
Mr. Schwalb. One of the things that we do every day is
making sure victims of domestic violence are getting protective
orders and making sure that they are protected from people who
may be putting them in a dangerous place.
Ms. Simon. Isn't it true that you work with mothers of
murdered children?
Mr. Schwalb. We do.
Ms. Simon. Isn't it true that you provide burial and
counseling assistance for folks in our communities who have
been victimized by violence?
Mr. Schwalb. We do.
Ms. Simon. And I want to thank you for that work. AG, would
you also say that in the District of Columbia, the young people
that you are prosecuting do not have readable access to mental
health supports in the District of Columbia?
Mr. Schwalb. We know that we have a job to do, which is
holding young people accountable when they commit crimes, and
we are doing that every day. But too often, we see the young
people that are coming into the criminal justice system
struggling with terrible trauma, mental health, behavioral
health challenges, and we cannot ignore that need, too.
Ms. Simon. That is right.
Mr. Schwalb. We have got to do both. And while we will do
the prosecution work, and we will continue to do that, we
cannot ignore the fact that there are causes that lead to
repeat offenders, violent offenders, and sometimes it is the
mental health and trauma that young people are carrying around.
If we do not ignore it and--if we do ignore it and do not
address it, we are going to be continually fighting this issue.
Ms. Simon. Wouldn't you also agree, AG, that reentry
services create opportunities for young people who have been
convicted and have served time in the juvenile detention
facility the opportunity to stop the pattern of committing
crime?
Mr. Schwalb. A hundred percent.
Ms. Simon. Would you agree that the defunding of reentry
services increases the likelihood of young people not being
able to do the rehabilitative work to be able to maintain their
civility and their opportunities to do right by all of us?
Mr. Schwalb. If we do not take care of kids after they have
been committed, after they have faced consequences, with
getting back into community and making sure that they have
healthy, hopeful pathways--kids with hope are safer to everyone
around them.
Ms. Simon. I would say that that is not soft on crime.
Would you agree that if you have to charge every 14-year-old
and put them in an adult cage, that when they get out--because
they will get out--that they will be worse than when they came
in?
Mr. Schwalb. We know that to be true.
Ms. Simon. We know that to be true. Over 40 percent of
young people who are charged as adults, they do get out, and
they are more likely to offend than if they were processed and
rehabilitated in the juvenile court. Is that not fact?
Mr. Schwalb. We need to make sure that young people, when
they commit crimes, are held accountable with swift and certain
consequences, and we are doing that. Long prison sentences or
putting kids into the adult criminal justice system does not
make us safer in the long run. And that is what I am committed
to. I want our D.C. to be safer now and into the future, and we
can do both.
Ms. Simon. One of the reasons why I abandoned my prepared
remarks, I spent almost 30 years working with some of the most
troubled young people in my community. And in the programs that
I developed and implemented, we reduced crime and recidivism by
almost 70 percent of young women who are in the juvenile
justice system. And that work was not done by prosecuting them
as adults and putting them into cages to rot. What we did was
invest deeply in their rehabilitation but also in their
accountability and ensuring that the victims were made whole.
So, I want to thank you all for your assertion that D.C.
not only can govern itself, but if we were to do right by
victims and right by children and right by families, we would
fund education. We would have free childcare. We would ensure
that every person who was seeking healthcare could get it. We
are so far from that vision. So instead of problematizing the
elected leaders of this city, I would hope that in the future
that folks who have no experience in law enforcement on this
body listen to the experts.
Thank you so much. And I yield back.
Ms. Bowser. Thank you.
Mr. Mendelson. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. The witnesses have requested a recess, but
we are going to recognize one more Member. Then we are going to
have a 15-minute recess.
So, the Chair recognizes Mr. Crane from Arizona.
Mr. Crane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to say thank you to the guests for showing up today.
Since I only have 5 minutes, my first question is going to be a
yes or no. Does D.C. have a crime problem, Mayor Bowser?
Ms. Bowser. Any crime is too much crime, Mr. Crane, but--we
are trending in the right direction.
Mr. Crane. Sorry, just yes or no?
Mr. Mendelson. It is not a yes or no question.
Mr. Crane. Okay. Chairman Mendelson, does D.C. have a crime
problem, yes or no?
Mr. Mendelson. There is more crime than we want, but it is
significantly----
Mr. Crane. All right. I am----
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. Less.
Mr. Crane [continuing]. Moving on since you cannot follow
the instructions. Attorney General, does D.C. have a crime
problem, yes or no?
Mr. Schwalb. One crime is one too many.
Mr. Crane. Okay.
Mr. Schwalb. We got to keep working at it.
Mr. Crane. Mr. Jackson?
Mr. Jackson. One crime is one too many, I agree.
Mr. Crane. Thank you. Do you guys know where D.C. ranks
amongst U.S. cities in crime? Mayor Bowser?
Ms. Bowser. In what category?
Mr. Crane. Crime rates.
Ms. Bowser. You have to be more specific. And I do not----
Mr. Crane. It is okay.
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. Have a list----
Mr. Crane. It is okay.
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. Of other cities----
Mr. Crane. You guys----
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. Or states.
Mr. Crane [continuing]. Actually rank number seven.
Ms. Bowser. Okay.
Mr. Crane. So, you are in the top ten of most violent
cities in the United States. And this is, as other Members have
pointed out, our city, our Nation's capital, a lot of people
come here. And Mayor, I know, like many of my colleagues have
already mentioned, you got a very tough job, and we all
appreciate that.
Mr. Mendelson. It all depends on how you crunch the
numbers.
Mr. Crane. Hold on a second. I am not----
Mr. Schwalb. U.S. News and World Report----
Mr. Crane. I did not ask you a question. Has crime gone
down?
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. Did not place us in the top 25.
Mr. Crane. Hey, hold on a second. I am asking the questions
here.
Has crime gone down since the President deployed the
National Guard and other Federal agencies, Mayor Bowser?
Ms. Bowser. I already mentioned, Congressman, the numbers
during the Federal surge.
Mr. Crane. So it has gone down?
Ms. Bowser. It accelerated, yes.
Mr. Crane. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mendelson, you said in
criticism to the National Guard being present in D.C., you said
that they look bored. I am going to ask you a question, sir.
Would you rather have National Guardsmen standing posts around
D.C. looking bored but driving down crime or continue to be
ranked in the top ten in the country in violent crime?
Mr. Mendelson. Well, as I was trying to say, depending upon
how you look at the data, we do not even place in the top 25.
Now, I, in my testimony, I outlined eight ways----
Mr. Crane. That is definitely not the reporting that I have
seen. You guys are ranked----
Mr. Mendelson. Well, U.S. News and World Report----
Mr. Crane. You guys are ranked number seven.
Mr. Mendelson. U.S. News and World Report.
Mr. Crane. You guys are ranked number seven.
Mr. Mendelson. You can see that study.
Mr. Crane. All right. Moving on. Councilman Mendelson, did
you vote with the rest of the City Council to defund the police
by $15 million in 2020?
Mr. Mendelson. I do not believe that is the correct amount,
but I did vote----
Mr. Crane. Yes, you did.
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. For the budget then.
Mr. Crane. You did. Okay. Councilman, did you call the
police in July 2025 because of a protest outside of your home?
Mr. Mendelson. I called 911.
Mr. Crane. Okay.
Mr. Mendelson. It was at midnight. In fact, it was 12:30 in
the morning.
Mr. Crane. Right.
Mr. Mendelson. And it was a number----
Mr. Crane. Okay.
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. Of individuals who were
actually breaking the law, the Residential Tranquility Act,
with how loud they were.
Mr. Crane. Okay. So, you voted to defund policing by $15
million in 2020 with the rest of the Council. This is what the
police union, police officers, had to say about your
interaction----
Mr. Mendelson. I know what you are----
Mr. Crane [continuing]. With the police.
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. Going to say, and I have
already said it to Mr. Pemberton.
Mr. Crane. Well, I am going to say it, so you are not going
to interrupt me. ``Over the weekend, Chairman Mendelson called
the police because there were peaceful protesters at his house.
Because he decimated the police department with horrible
legislation, and our staffing has now 800-plus vacancies, there
was a delay in responding to his home. Because of the delay,
Chairman Mendelson called and screamed at Office of Unified
Communications (OUC) and MPD staff. There is now a permanent
security detail at his home, staffed by an MPD officer who
should be handling more important matters.
We currently have 3,100 total sworn members, the lowest in
50 years, and we now have to dedicate one of them to be a
security blanket for a man who hates cops, while other people
calling 911 for real emergencies will have to wait. This
nonsense must end immediately.'' So, that is what the police
department had to say about you and that incident.
Mr. Mendelson. No, police union, not police department,
sir.
Mr. Crane. Yes, the police union, the union that represents
police officers.
Mr. Mendelson. I am aware of that statement, and it is
false on numerous points.
Mr. Crane. Do they represent police officers, Mr.
Mendelson, the police union?
Mr. Mendelson. It is the union President.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
Mr. Crane. Okay. Attorney General Schwalb, do you agree
that all legal measures should be on the table to combat crime
and lawlessness in the city?
Mr. Schwalb. I do.
Mr. Crane. Okay. Then why historically has the D.C.
Attorney General declined to prosecute crimes? According to
media reports, D.C. declined to prosecute crimes in 67 percent
of arrests in 2023 under AG Graves. The D.C. quarterly
clearance reports from your office show a similar trend in 2025
through Q1 and 2. You are only prosecuting 53 percent of gun-
related homicides, 50 percent of sex abuse cases involving a
knife, and 37 percent of nonfatal shootings. There is also an
ongoing investigation into if the D.C. crime data was
manipulated under Joe Biden so that historic level of crime did
not look as bad on paper. And I look forward to the outcome of
this investigation.
Now----
Mr. Schwalb. Mr. Crane, if I can answer your----
Mr. Crane [continuing]. Going back to your----
Mr. Schwalb. Can I answer your question?
Mr. Crane [continuing]. Initial answer, is that doing
everything you can to protect this city?
Mr. Schwalb. The statistics that you just read are the
statistics not from my office, but from the Federal U.S.
Attorney's Office. The prosecution rates from the Office of
Attorney General have been in excess of 84 percent for violent
crime over the last two years. So, the statistics you rely on
to malign my office do not come from my office. They come from
the Federal U.S. Attorney's Office.
Mr. Crane. So, you are prosecuting all of these crimes is
what you are saying?
Mr. Schwalb. The jurisdiction of the Office of Attorney
General in the District of Columbia is to prosecute juvenile
delinquency crimes. And last year, we prosecuted more than 84
percent of the violent juvenile crimes that MPD brought to us.
We prosecute every violent crime where we have sufficient
evidence to meet our burden of proof. Kids need to face
consequences----
Mr. Crane. I agree.
Mr. Schwalb [continuing]. And be held accountable, and we
are doing that. The rates speak for themselves.
Mr. Crane. Are you in support of moving the age of minors
here in D.C.? That is one of the bills that we have this week.
Mr. Schwalb. The residents of the District of Columbia, the
700,000 of us who live here, know more and care more about how
we are going to make our city safe than anybody else. The
residents----
Mr. Crane. You did not answer my question.
Mr. Schwalb. The residents of the District of Columbia and
their elected officials do not believe we are going to make
ourselves safer----
Mr. Crane. Why do you think the rest of the country
considers somebody at 18 years old no longer a minor? What is
it here in D.C.?
Mr. Schwalb. The age of anyone younger than 18 is a
juvenile in the District of Columbia, just like the rest of the
country.
Mr. Crane. Don't you guys consider people that are 25 and
below minors?
Mr. Schwalb. I think you misunderstand the law, sir.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired, but feel
free to answer that, General.
Mr. Schwalb. Well, I think you are misunderstanding the
law, and I think you are referring to the Youth Rehabilitation
Act. But in our city, youth younger than 18 are treated as
juveniles. The Youth Rehabilitation Act involves a totally
different set of adult defendants in criminal cases and
involves a different issue that the city has confronted. And I
think that issue has been conflated in some of the laws that
this body has put forth. And I really wish we could have had a
conversation beforehand so we could have explained better what
the YRA does, relative to all of the other laws that we have in
our city, that we are working every day to help drive juvenile
crime and violent crime down.
Chairman Comer. Thank you. So, you support the Youth
Rehabilitation Act? I think that was one of the questions he
was asking. Do you support that?
Mr. Schwalb. The question was whether or not we----
Chairman Comer. Do you support the Youth Rehabilitation
Act? That is part of what we are repealing.
Ms. Lee. Mr. Chair, we are two and a half minutes over.
Chairman Comer. Okay. All right. Time has expired.
Pursuant to the previous order, the Chair declares the
Committee in recess, subject to the call of the Chair. We plan
to reconvene in 15 minutes at the request of the witnesses. The
Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Comer. The Committee will come to order. Before we
resume the questioning part of the hearing, I want to recognize
Ms. Norton from Washington, D.C., for some unanimous consent
requests. Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a unanimous
consent request to enter into the record a statement from
Donald Sherman from CREW regarding the takeover of D.C. local
law enforcement, a letter from Brady on restricting the
autonomy of the District of Columbia, and a statement from the
Project on Government Oversight regarding the militarizing of
law enforcement in the District of Columbia, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
All right. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
I want to touch up on something that Mr. Frost said. He
kept asking, where is your bill, where is your bill? And, you
know, there are two schools of thought up here as we try to
address the crime crisis in Washington, D.C. and try to come to
solutions. And I feel like one thing that my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle constantly say, you have to have a bill
to do this. They said you had to have a bill to secure the
border. Well, President Trump secured the border within days of
assuming the Presidency. It was not the lack of a bill. And
their bill, by the way, had a lot of amnesty in there, which
made it a toxic bill. And that was a poison pill, as we say
often about bills.
So, there is also a school of thought that to alleviate
poverty or to control poverty, you have to have a bill. You
have to have government programs. You have to hire a bunch of
government bureaucrats. You have to have government funding,
and it has to increase by ten percent every year, every year,
year after year, year after year. Many of us, myself included,
believe that the best way to end poverty is to try to help
grant access to a good-paying job, a good-paying job. And we do
not think you get good-paying jobs through government
bureaucracies, through government agencies, through never-
ending creation of new government programs.
And with respect to alleviating crime in Washington, D.C.,
we had, as we all know, an aggressive markup last week. And,
you know, the bills addressed, many of them, juvenile crime.
So, General Schwalb, do you agree or disagree that there is a
juvenile crime problem in Washington, D.C.?
Mr. Schwalb. I think we need to make sure that when kids
commit crimes, particularly violent crimes----
Chairman Comer. But is there--it seems like, looking out
the window at night, there were a lot of kids running around.
You know, a lot of the carjackings were committed by juveniles,
just an excessively high juvenile crime rate, if you define
juvenile as, you know, the way your definition under 24 is.
Mr. Schwalb. Well, here in the District, Mr. Chairman,
juvenile is defined as younger than 18. My office is addressing
every violent juvenile crime that we have.
Chairman Comer. So, there is no juvenile crime crisis in
Washington? Is that what you want to say?
Mr. Schwalb. One crime from a young person----
Chairman Comer. Okay.
Mr. Schwalb [continuing]. Is one too many.
Chairman Comer. So, Chairman Mendelson, is there a juvenile
crime problem in Washington, D.C.?
Mr. Mendelson. Well, the challenge, Mr. Chairman, is that
what does problem mean? So, if I were to say yes----
Chairman Comer. Okay. So that is----
Mr. Mendelson. No, there is too much----
Chairman Comer. I mean, if you cannot say there is a
juvenile crime problem in Washington, D.C., that is why we have
to come in----
Mr. Mendelson. Well, I am trying to give you an honest----
Chairman Comer [continuing]. And help out a little bit.
Mr. Mendelson. Well, I am trying to give you an honest----
Chairman Comer. And many of us believe that the juvenile
crime problems were created by excessive, excessive criminal
justice reform. Now, I supported criminal justice reform back
when it first became a thing in Kentucky. So did another
Republican, Rand Paul. At that time, it dealt with
incarcerating young people because of possession of marijuana.
And I believed then, and I still believe, that, you know, that
was an excessive penalty to pay for what is now legal in most
states, marijuana. And it did appear to me by the numbers to
have a trace of racism in it, that it seemed like many times
White kids that got possession of marijuana somehow got out of
it over Black kids. I believe that. I said that publicly in
Kentucky.
But over time, the activists, you know, continued to expand
that and expand that to, you know, no bail, cashless bail,
raise the age of what is a juvenile, and, you know, treat
juveniles to where they got a slap on the wrist even if they
committed a serious crime. And that is why we stepped in.
So, you all have said--and I am talking about Chairman
Mendelson and General Schwalb--that you oppose every bill that
we passed out of this Committee, I will assume. I believe Ms.
Norton read letters of opposition from you all on the bills.
What is the answer to juvenile crime? And I mean, do you think
it is working if we do nothing, which is what the Democrats in
here want to do, and which is what I think you all want to do?
Is it going to get better on its own?
Mr. Mendelson. Mr. Chairman, if you want a conversation, a
yes or no is difficult for a conversation. What do I think we
can do to reduce juvenile crime? Because I do think there is
more of it than there should be by far. I think, for one thing,
we have to address public education and attendance. We have to
look at kids who are missing school and see that as an
opportunity to identify why they are missing school. There may
be something dysfunctional in the home or with that juvenile
that needs to be addressed.
Chairman Comer. And I will let you answer----
Mr. Mendelson. I am interested in reducing----
Chairman Comer [continuing]. A lot of questions, Mr.
Mendelson. But we believe that the message has been sent that
if you are a juvenile and you commit a crime in Washington,
D.C., you will not be held accountable.
Mr. Mendelson. And that is a mistake if that is the message
because that is not the message that any of the three of us
take.
Chairman Comer. Well, we are not saying you--that is the
unintended consequence of the laws that the Council passed. And
to the Mayor's credit, she vetoed several of those laws. And I
do not think, you know, another thing--they always say, and I
think Mr. Jackson said--a takeover, you know, from the National
Guard in Kentucky when we had the Breonna Taylor riots and
stuff in Louisville. Louisville is Democrat mayor, and we have
a Democrat Governor in Kentucky. Without hesitation, the
Democrat Governor, along with the support of the mayor, allowed
the National Guard to come in and restore order. No one in
Kentucky complained about the National Guard coming in. No one
said it was a takeover and they were going to have to train and
educate the youth on how to respond to the National Guard. That
was just what was done to restore order.
So, we support what the President is doing. We want to work
with the Council and the Mayor's office and the AG to try to
come up with solutions to the problem. But doing nothing is not
working. And that is kind of what my colleagues over here want
to do, creating more government programs, hiring more
government bureaucrats. That is not work. That has been the
business model in the past, and it has not worked. It has not
worked in Washington, D.C., and it is not working in a lot of
other cities. So, hopefully, we can continue to have dialog and
come up with solutions to solve the crime crisis, especially
the juvenile crime crisis in Washington.
Now, the Chair recognizes Mr. Khanna from California.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chairman, this Administration has initiated the largest
assault on the First Amendment and free speech in modern
history. They are making comedy illegal. Brendan Carr pressured
ABC to cancel Jimmy Kimmel, and Disney cancels Jimmy Kimmel,
this canceling from an Administration that lectured us about
cancel culture.
That is why today I am introducing a motion to subpoena
Brendan Carr to bring him in front of this Committee to stop
the intimidation of private businesses and to stand up for the
First Amendment.
Now, it is not just Brendan Carr. Attorney General Pam
Bondi is prosecuting hate speech, even though hate speech is
constitutionally protected, and even though we have had so many
lectures from my friends on the other side of the aisle not to
prosecute hate speech.
And then what about our Vice President, the champion of
free speech, as he told us during the campaign? The Vice
President is telling Americans to snitch on fellow Americans
who have offensive posts and to call their employers so they
can be fired. And the Vice President is threatening to
prosecute political organizations that he disagrees with.
Look, we are article 1 of the Constitution, not foot
lackeys for Donald Trump and J.D. Vance. It is time that we
stand up for our constitutional role to defend the freedoms of
Americans. People are tired of us just giving our power to
Donald Trump and J.D. Vance. We have an obligation to our
Constitution, not to Donald Trump and J.D. Vance, as they ride
roughshod over the First Amendment.
So, in the name of all those who are being censored in
Washington, D.C., and around the country; in the name of all
those who are being intimidated in Washington, D.C., and around
the country; in the name of Americans, Republicans,
Independents, and Democrats, who believe in the First Amendment
and free speech, I motion today to subpoena Brendan Carr and to
have him explain to the American people why he is bullying
private individuals and private businesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Pursuant to this rule--and I will get
the exact language so we make it official. Pursuant to House
Rule XI, clause 2(6), I motion to subpoena Brendan Carr to come
before this Committee and testify in front of the full
Oversight Committee. And I hope that my motion to subpoena him
will be voted on as soon as possible.
Chairman Comer. A motion is made. The Committee will hold
this motion in abeyance until 1:45, give everybody time to come
back in here.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. And if I might say.
Mr. Khanna. Yes, sir.
Chairman Comer. I know Brendan Carr well. And----
Mr. Khanna. Mr. Chair, I hope you will have him come in.
Chairman Comer. Well, I think we could do that. I think we
could----
Mr. Khanna. I appreciate that, sir.
Chairman Comer. I do not think the motion is necessary, but
I am pretty confident he would be willing to come in to
testify. So.
Mr. Khanna. Well, thank you.
Chairman Comer. I will just say that. I do not think the
motion is necessary. Do you want to withdraw the motion?
Mr. Khanna. I still want the motion, sir. Well----
Chairman Comer. All right.
Mr. Khanna [continuing]. You know, we will do it, and he
can come in. But I would appreciate, you know, I have
appreciated your working with our Ranking Member on Epstein,
and I have appreciated your collaboration with him. Of course,
I appreciate our Ranking Member's leadership on this issue, and
he deserves a lot of credit for our subpoena today. But, you
know, if you want to work with our Ranking Member on a
collaborative process on that, like you have been on Epstein, I
would appreciate it.
Mr. Garcia. Yes, thank you.
Ms. Ansari. I would also like to second the motion.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. Thank you, Congresswoman. And yes,
first of all, thank you, Representative Khanna.
And you know, Mr. Chairman, I think that is a great offer.
I think obviously we are very interested in what is happening,
and if we could come to an agreement. I know we have another 30
minutes or so before we actually take this vote, but if we can
come to an agreement prior to that--I would like to talk to Mr.
Khanna and to you--because our goal and clearly yours is to get
him in front of this Committee. I think it would be very
productive.
Chairman Comer. And I think he would want to come--well,
nobody wants to come in front of the Committee, but I think he
would be willing to come in front of the Committee. So.
Mr. Garcia. So, I think we have----
Chairman Comer. We will make sure our staffs are in
communication and we will see. But your motion is recognized,
and we will see if we can come up with something before 1:45.
If we cannot, we will vote on it.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Sessions from
Texas.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr.
Chairman, I first want to thank the members of the panel who
have taken their time to be with us today.
General, you and I met on the street the other day, and you
were most elegant in your discussion with me, and I welcomed
you to the Hill. And I am glad that you are here. Mayor, thank
you, and I am glad you are here. I have got a note for you that
I want to bring to you also.
I think it is important for us to understand where we are
coming from as Republicans, perhaps. I do not want to say that
Democrats would be a lot different. I think it is just the
answer of how you get there. We want this to be a safe town. We
want this to be a town that works. We want this to be a town
where people can come and visit this town and feel like they
can come to our Nation's capital and see things in a way where
they are safe, their children are safe, they are not worried
about a drive-by shooting. They are not worried about a lot of
things that are very present in this town. They are very
present in New York City. And we want to be accused of trying
to help to make things better.
So, I became engaged, as I told the General, in trying to
look at how we satisfy with a better answer, with another
answer that I think is better on the Judicial Commission. You
may be completely happy with the Judicial Commission. I looked
at it, and I am not. There are a huge number of vacancies where
people have been nominated for years, Republicans, Democrats,
President Biden, President Trump, leaders of the majority of
both parties, and it is still hanging out there.
And I simply believe that this city is entitled to our
help, and that is what we are trying to do with these bills. I
most sincerely believe, as I told the General, I most sincerely
believe that it is not good to have--I do not know the exact
number--but ten or twelve people that have been nominated that
are not serving today, and those judges that are on there on
the superior court or on the court of appeals are vacant. And
they have been vacant, some of them, since 2013. This is darn
near 2025.
And I think that if you go to a model that may work, that
is all we are trying to say. I think having the President,
whether the President is Republican, whether the President is a
Democrat, will have an intrinsic interest. And I remember this,
when my parents moved us here in 1969. We knew Washington
struggled in lots of ways, but the Presidents all tried to,
every one of them, to do something that they saw that would
better Washington.
I believe that if we come and try and help with the most
sincerity that our young Chairman has, that I think our Members
have, it is not about trying to parse words together about
whether it is a local judge or not. It is a superior court
judge that we are not going to replace any of them. We are
trying to move forward to fill those seats of a superior court
judge or of an appeals court, superior appeals court judge.
And on the Floor, this thing got pitched as, you are trying
to make things that are simple about local judges. There is not
much local about this in some respects. It is a national
treasure.
So, it is my hope that you would perhaps look through some
of the words that are said here and just accept the sincerity
by which we come to you, and that I do, and I think our
Chairman, and I think the others do. We are trying to help.
So, General, I looked you in the eye. You were most genuine
with me. I want to be most genuine with you and say, maybe your
feedback about what we do, you might disagree with, but please
give us at lease credit. We are trying to leave it for any
Republican or Democrat to make the decision because they will
take the responsibility to get the judges.
Mr. Schwalb. Representative Sessions, I want to appreciate
very much your spirit of working with us on this issue because
the vacancies on our court are having a very significant impact
on our public safety system and our economy. But the problem
with getting judges on our court is not sitting with the
Judicial Nomination Commission (JNC). The way to solve getting
judges on our court--and I appreciate your willingness to think
about solutions--would be to allow our Mayor to nominate judges
and have our Council confirm judges the way it is done in your
state and states around the country. And we would get that
vacancy on our superior court fixed right away.
So, there are multiple ways of getting it solved. I do not
think the JNC is the problem. I think the problem has been in
the White House and in the Senate, and we could solve this
problem together if you would be open, and your colleagues
open, to changing the law to allow the Mayor to nominate, the
Council to confirm, just like states around the country do. And
I appreciate your----
Mr. Sessions. Yes, sir.
Mr. Schwalb [continuing]. Spirit of cooperation.
Mr. Sessions. Yes, sir. And my only counter to you is, like
a lot of things here, they have been in control of the Council
or the Mayor, and we slightly disagree.
Mr. Mendelson. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sessions. We slightly disagree about the crime bill. We
slightly disagree about a lot of things. I am trying to fix it.
Last, Mr. Chairman, I--thank you. We believe that if a
President can have some skin in the game in this town,
Republican or Democrat, they will follow through and get those
judges confirmed.
I want to thank each of you. Mayor, I am going to walk down
and give you something, just a note.
General----
Mr. Mendelson. Could I answer for just a second? I think
the problem is, if--Mr. Chairman, may I just?
Chairman Comer. Go ahead.
Mr. Mendelson. Thank you.
Mr. Sessions. This is part of good dialog, sir.
Mr. Mendelson. I agree. In my view, the problem is that the
District is not important enough to the Federal Government. It
is important today in this hearing, but that vacancy for 13
years, no President has seen us important enough to submit a
nomination.
Last December----
Mr. Sessions. Oh, he has been nominated.
Mr. Mendelson. Last December----
Mr. Sessions. It is pending.
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. The Senate did not think it was
important enough to confirm the judges that were pending that
had been reported out of Committee because there are always
other issues. There are national issues that are more important
to you all.
Mr. Sessions. But the President nominated them.
Chairman Comer. All right. Okay.
Mr. Sessions. The President could have worked----
Chairman Comer. You all could have good conversation after.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and the Ranking
Member, thank you for allowing me this time.
Chairman Comer. All right.
Mr. Sessions. I appreciate it.
Mr. Mendelson. Thank you.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Randall from
Washington State.
Ms. Randall. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our
witnesses for being here today as your city goes through these
difficult circumstances.
I have heard a lot of discussions over the past few weeks
about public safety and crime in Washington, D.C., here on the
Hill and from my friends and neighbors who live in the District
of Columbia. And these concerns about crime have been used as
justification for President Trump's militarization and
occupation. Like my Republican colleagues, I believe that
Federal Government has a role to play in improving public
safety. I would also say, like my Democratic colleagues, we
believe that everyone deserves to feel safe.
Where we seem to differ is that I prefer to focus on
proven, not performative solutions. Proven solutions are those
that invest in community. But my Republican colleagues
arbitrarily cut $1 billion from the D.C. budget in March of
this year, which has impacted the city's ability to fund the
police, firefighters, and other public safety programs. And
then, while holding these funds hostage, the President deployed
National Guard in the name of public safety instead of giving
D.C. the funds necessary to provide safety. And at the same
time, Donald Trump and congressional Republicans have made the
largest cut in history to Medicaid, regardless of the fact that
Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) led to a
significant drop in violent crime nationwide. What we are
seeing from this Administration is unlawful, undemocratic, and
follows the playbook of an authoritarian government.
Across the country, a total of more than $4 billion in
Federal funding, funding that supports American families,
businesses, and local governments, has been frozen or
terminated. Withholding these Federal Government funds, funds
that have been constitutionally appropriated by Congress, can
and will be used to coerce other American states and cities
into cooperating with this rogue Administration in fear of
having their cities occupied too.
In Pierce County, in my district, they have nearly $200
billion of Federal funds that could be at risk, which includes
a $706,000 grant from the Department of Homeland Security's
Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention Program that was
abruptly terminated. These funds were dedicated to
implementing, like the name says, targeted violence threat
assessments in our schools to mitigate youth violence and
radicalization.
The Department of Homeland Security's letter stated that
the grant was being terminated in part because the Department,
consistent with President Trump's direction, is focused on
advancing the essential mission of enforcing immigration laws,
securing the border, and combating antisemitism. Consequently,
grant projects that support or have the potential to support
activities not aligned with Department of Homeland Security
(DHS)' current focus do not effectuate the agency's current
priorities.
What is so explicitly clear to me is that this
Administration's excuses of sending the National Guard to local
cities in defiance of the local governments in order to address
crime and improve public safety are an absolute sham when they
are canceling funding left and right that would actually,
actually help our local governments address these very issues.
Mr. Jackson, could you speak to how public safety is
affected when you defund programs like targeted violence and
terrorism prevention grants?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, I mean, a critical resource of our
Federal Government has been helping states prepare to identify
and intercept targeted violence across the country. In fact,
the Department of Homeland Security was required to work with
state government on that. But those resources through
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and
other preparatory agencies or departments are under siege.
But what we are also concerned about is just the direct
Federal law enforcement resources for agencies like the ATF
that are specifically focused on intercepting guns from getting
into our communities. And again, with cities like D.C., where
95 percent of the guns are coming from outside of the state,
that Federal law enforcement is crucial but are now
experiencing over 40 percent cut.
Ms. Randall. Would you say, in your experience, that local
investments, like funding for local law enforcement, funding
for targeted violence and terrorism prevention, funding for ATF
programs would have a greater effect on public safety than the
militarization of our cities?
Mr. Jackson. It is a fact. And frankly, that is what we
have seen over the last two years with a 31 percent reduction
in homicides. This year, we are still tracking for another 20
percent reduction in homicides, and we think that is a direct
result of the resources to prevent violence before it happens.
Ms. Randall. Thank you for your answer, for your work. And
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. McGuire from
Virginia, in the corner.
Mr. McGuire. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
witnesses for coming here today.
You know, as a Navy veteran, as a freshman Member of
Congress, I love our country, and I love Washington, D.C., the
history, the people, the culture. This is America's city. And I
represent Virginia's Fifth congressional District. People from
the Fifth congressional District come here for vacation or for
work every day, and people from around the country. I think we
should all agree, though, that whether you live here or visit
here, you should be able to walk down any street in America, in
Washington, D.C., with your little girl or your little boy and
be safe. And I think we would be less honest if we said it has
not been a problem.
And I want to say that the actions of this Administration
with President Trump have lowered crime and lowered murder
rates to record lows. And so, I want to start by saying, thank
God President Trump put your security and your safety, law and
order, above other divisive ideas.
We would not have a country without our men and women in
law enforcement. And I see a lot of them around here right now.
I just want to thank you. Each of you, in your written
testimony, emphasized the importance of the work of the
Metropolitan Police Department is doing to keep the residents
of D.C. safe and the need to increase funding for the
department.
I have a very simple yes or no question. Do you disagree
with defund-the-police movement? And I will start with Mayor
Bowser. Yes or no, do you disagree with defund the police?
Ms. Bowser. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. Mr. Mendelson?
Mr. Mendelson. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. And Mr. Schwalb?
Mr. Mendelson. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. And Mr. Jackson?
Mr. Jackson. Frankly, I think you should ask the President
that.
Mr. McGuire. That is a yes or no, sir.
All right. Mr. Mendelson, in your written testimony, you
stated the following, ``Since 2020, police departments across
the region and the country have faced challenges in recent
years to hiring and have failed to hit their hiring targets.''
Can you tell me what major event happened in 2020?
Mr. Mendelson. The murder of George Floyd.
Mr. McGuire. Mr. Mendelson, in 2020, the D.C. Council voted
in favor of a budget that defunded the MPD by more than $15
million. In the years that have followed, crime has skyrocketed
in D.C. Do you still stand by this decision? I will remind you
that this is a simple yes or no.
Mr. Mendelson. Well, as I said to another Congressman----
Mr. McGuire. I just said a yes or no. I have got a very
limited time with all due respect.
Mr. Mendelson. I realize that, but----
Mr. McGuire. All right, Mr. Mendelson, hundreds of MDP
law----
Mr. Mendelson. These questions are more complicated than a
yes or no.
Mr. McGuire [continuing]. Enforcement officers have left
the department since 2020 because they do not feel they have
support from D.C. Council. In fact, the Council not only voted
to defund the department in 2020, you also went so far as to
put a target on your officers and their families by releasing
body camera footage with the officer's name attached.
For all witnesses, let us talk about D.C.'s fiscal policy.
Do you believe D.C. does a good job at managing their budget?
This is just--I do not have much time with all due respect--yes
or no. So, Mayor Bowser, yes or no?
Ms. Bowser. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. Mr. Mendelson?
Mr. Mendelson. We do an excellent job.
Mr. McGuire. Mr. Schwalb?
Mr. Schwalb. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. Mr. Jackson?
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. I find that interesting. I am going to list a
few of the programs funded by the city's approved Fiscal Year
2025 budget: $5 million to support D.C.'s hosting of the World
Pride 2025. Regardless of party, race, religion or creed, I
love you, but your number one goal should be to keep the
citizens safe, not that. One million dollars to support the
construction of an LGBTQ-plus community center in Shaw;
$250,000 to support Black LGBTQ-plus history program; $434,000
in Fiscal Year 2025 and $1.3 million across the financial plan
to establish a reparations task force; $600,000 to provide
workforce development services for transgender and gender
nonconforming residents who are experiencing homelessness and
housing instability; $40 million to ensure migrants in D.C. are
treated humanely; $868,000 for a cost-of-living adjustment for
Council staff.
And yes or no, do you stand by these funding initiatives?
Yes or no? I do not have much time. Mayor Bowser?
Ms. Bowser. I do.
Mr. McGuire. Mr. Mendelson? Mr. Schwalb?
Mr. Mendelson. We have a $20 billion----
Mr. McGuire. Mr. Jackson?
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. Budget, and I stand by what we
appropriated.
Mr. McGuire. Instead of funding these programs that promote
the far left radical woke agenda, this $48 million could have
been used to hire approximately 685 additional MPD officers. If
you had put this money toward supporting policies instead of
woke agendas, we would have had less murders and safer streets.
So, I will go back to what I said. By the grace of God,
President Trump loves the American people regardless of party,
race, religion, or creed, and you are safer today. Thank you. I
yield back.
Mr. Mendelson. Congressman, we have fully funded the MPD
budget request. Every year, we have fully funded the MPD budget
request. The challenge is that there are not enough applicants
for big city police departments across the country and in the
region.
Chairman Comer. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Subramanyam.
Mr. Subramanyam. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the
conversation today.
I mean, Mr. Jackson, you just mentioned you should ask the
President the question. I want to tackle that a little bit
because the question was, you know, about defunding the police,
yet this Congress and this President has not fully funded the
police and fully funded D.C. with its own taxpayer money,
correct? And what we are seeing is that we are hundreds of
police officers and law enforcement officials short in D.C. So,
could you explain that a little bit more?
Mr. Jackson. I was referencing a little bit broader than
D.C., but this Congress has made the largest defunding of law
enforcement, I believe, in American history under Republican
leadership and under Trump's advisement to cut ATF, to cut DEA,
to cut FBI. And then the remaining officers that are left, as
opposed to putting them to their jobs to intercept guns that
are being trafficked into our communities, they are now
patrolling impoverished communities like Ward 8.
And so, when we talk about defunding the police, we should
look right into the eyes of President Trump and ask him, why
are you defunding the Federal law enforcement that is supposed
to protect our communities from the flow of illegal guns?
Mr. Subramanyam. Mayor Bowser, would you agree with that?
Ms. Bowser. With defunding the Federal law enforcement
efforts?
Mr. Subramanyam. What we just said, this Administration and
this Congress has not fully funded law enforcement.
Ms. Bowser. I would agree with that.
Mr. Subramanyam. Exactly. I would as well because, in the
end, we are spending millions of dollars, millions of dollars a
day on National Guard instead of spending that money on law
enforcement that should be a more sustainable, long-term
solution. And we are underfunding crime prevention programs in
D.C.
And what the National Guard is doing here is they are
getting bored, actually. They are at street corners just
hanging out, and they are not trained to be in law enforcement.
And we are spending millions of dollars a day instead while
they pick up trash. These are National Guardsmen from Louisiana
where there is a very high crime rate. And there is plenty to
do in Louisiana. I went to school there, so I know. And from
other states that have their own crime problem, that have their
own problems back home, but instead, they are being sent here
for photo ops, essentially. And they deserve better. Their
families deserve better. And the people of D.C. deserve better
instead.
And so, I think a better solution that is better for our
taxpayers and better for the American people, and certainly the
people of D.C., is why don't we just fund law enforcement and
crime prevention programs in D.C. instead of continually
underfunding them? Why don't we actually do what Chairman
Mendelson just said and try to do more initiatives to find more
law enforcement officers? Because that is a problem. Recruiting
is a big problem. Instead, we are sending the National Guard
in.
And I have got constituents, I am in Northern Virginia, who
work in D.C. every single day. And one constituent in Warrenton
said, ``I work in the District and am now in fear of my safety
to come to work and go home. With military roaming the streets,
with possible unchecked authorities, there are many
opportunities for harassment and abuse.'' I will tell you, it
is not just opportunities. People have been harassed and
abused. ``And I have never felt unsafe before, but now I am
becoming terrified.'' And I have gotten story after story about
that.
Mayor Bowser, have you gotten stories like that as well?
Ms. Bowser. I have gotten stories about people are
concerned about seeing the military patrolling, policing, with
guns, out of state. And people are not really sure who they
report to.
Mr. Subramanyam. And I had one person tell me that their
kids play soccer on the weekends, and they had National
Guardsmen at their soccer practice, just hanging out. And the
kids got scared, right?
And so, I think a better solution would be to send those
folks, those National Guardsmen from Louisiana and Mississippi,
home. And instead, why don't we fully fund D.C.'s crime
prevention programs and its budget instead and actually move
forward with these programs that have been working because
crime was going down. And then my constituents can come and
work in D.C., make that long commute that I make every morning,
and we can actually get to work and not be fearing that at
every street corner we might get harassed.
One more constituent said that they worked in D.C. for over
30 years and still go frequently. He never felt unsafe until
now. And it is a dangerous powerplay this Administration is
doing. And these Federal forces are not concentrating on
Federal issues of protecting our security. And what I think we
should be doing is finding people in our communities who can--
or people who want to join the police, who can actually stay in
our communities long term and actually fix the problem long
term instead of this short-term photo op that the
Administration is putting forward.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Mr. Bell.
Mr. Bell. Mr. Chair, I have a UC.
Chairman Comer. Mr. Bell.
Mr. Subramanyam. Yes, I do.
Mr. Bell. No, no, I do. But if it is still your time?
Chairman Comer. Well, it was like ten seconds, but I will
recognize Mr. Bell, for unanimous consent or whatever.
Mr. Bell. I request unanimous consent to enter into the
record this May 1, 2025, article from The Washington Post
titled, ``Trump Administration cut school mental health grants
created after school shootings,'' which show the complete
disregard this Administration shows toward proven solutions to
reduce violent crime.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
And Mr. Subramanyam, I would like to remind you that the CR
we are going to all have an opportunity to vote on tomorrow
restores that $1 billion in funding, so you will have an
opportunity to vote to give the money to the D.C.----
Mr. Subramanyam. Mr. Chair?
Chairman Comer [continuing]. Council that you just
mentioned.
Mr. Subramanyam. Mr. Chair, though, how did it get out in
the first place? Was that a----
Chairman Comer. I do not know, but I have been----
Mr. Subramanyam. Was that Democrats?
Chairman Comer [continuing]. A very vocal advocate----
Mr. Subramanyam. Why was it not funded in the first place?
Chairman Comer [continuing]. To get the money restored, so
it is----
Mr. Subramanyam. Okay.
Chairman Comer. You know, I do not know. No one has ever
explained that to me.
Mr. Subramanyam. And that does not include funding
increase.
Chairman Comer. But you will have an opportunity to--you
all will all have an opportunity to vote to restore that
funding tomorrow.
All right. The Chair recognizes Ms. Greene from Georgia.
Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to move to table the motion to subpoena. Jimmy
Kimmel was fired because he lied on ABC about the identity of
the man that, Tyler Robinson that murdered,--assassinated,
martyred Charlie Kirk. He lied and said he was MAGA. Tyler
Robinson was not MAGA, not one bit. He was part of Antifa. He
was in a relationship. He was in a relationship with someone
who identified as furry and trans. And this is an absurd lie,
and so I move to table the motion to subpoena.
Ms. Crockett. So, Mr. Chair, since typically, this is
nondebatable, I do have a point----
Mr. McGuire. I second it.
Ms. Crockett [continuing]. Of inquiry because it seems like
what we just heard from the gentlelady out of Georgia was her
debating why we should table it. So, I feel like we should
engage, we should all be given an opportunity to engage----
Chairman Comer. Well----
Ms. Crockett [continuing]. In debate----
Chairman Comer. It is not----
Ms. Crockett [continuing]. About whether or not----
Chairman Comer. You know parliamentary procedure. It is not
debatable.
Ms. Crockett. But the issue was that the gentlelady from
Georgia decided to go on a tirade.
Chairman Comer. Well----
Ms. Crockett. So, at a very minimum----
Chairman Comer [continuing]. Mr. Bell, he did more than
announce the title of the UC and the----
Ms. Crockett. Well, my question----
Chairman Comer [continuing]. Publisher.
Ms. Crockett [continuing]. Is about this motion to table.
The motion that was on the table, so I would, at a very
minimum, ask that the Minority be given equal time----
Chairman Comer. We will just try----
Ms. Crockett [continuing]. To respond.
Chairman Comer. How about we just hold off on the motion to
table, and let us get back to asking questions. Everybody good
with that?
Mr. Garcia. Was there no motion submitted then?
Mr. Lynch. Point of order.
Chairman Comer. Withdraw the motion for a little bit or
not, it is up to you.
Ms. Greene. I will withdraw it until----
Chairman Comer. Okay.
Ms. Greene [continuing]. The time needed to bring it back.
Chairman Comer. All right. Okay. All right. Are you
satisfied, Ms. Crockett?
Ms. Crockett. As long as the Minority gets equal time as
Ms. Greene----
Chairman Comer. All right. Okay. All right.
Ms. Crockett [continuing]. When she brings it back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Bell from
Missouri.
Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member.
Mayor, good to see you again.
Attorney General Schwalb, I want to extend my gratitude to
your office. When I was prosecutor, we had a very tough case
that actually involved a police officer defendant. And you all
helped us work with the victim in that case to a resolution
that both parties were happy with, particularly our victims,
and I appreciate that.
And so, I have a couple of questions that I want to talk
about. One, I think a point needs to be made between the role
of the National Guard and what they do and actual policing. And
those are two different roles, and I think a lot of folks do
not understand that difference. A 20-year-old with a gun in the
military is taught how to kill. Police officers have to do a
whole slew of things, including de-escalation, and so I think
that is important, and we talk about that.
And so, my first question--and I am short on time--Mayor,
you were asked a question about the resources and what you
would do with those resources, and you were cutoff. Could you
quickly finish that answer? That was earlier.
Ms. Bowser. The resources with regard to our budget?
Mr. Bell. Yes.
Ms. Bowser. Yes. So, in order to close the billion-dollar
gap, we looked across our government. So, we had to cut
citywide contracts related to everything from mental health
services to the contracts to give our employees raises, most
notably MPD and fire and EMS.
Mr. Bell. And so, law enforcement would be included in
that, obviously----
Ms. Bowser. Yes.
Mr. Bell [continuing]. As a priority, but there is also
other things that a mayor is responsible for.
Ms. Bowser. Absolutely, including shifting spending that
should have happened in 2025 related to affordable housing.
Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mayor.
And Attorney General, can you speak to how over-policing
and temporary enforcement tactics have addressed or failed to
address the root causes of crime in D.C.?
Mr. Schwalb. Well, as anybody in law enforcement knows,
anybody prosecuting cases knows, the level of trust the
community has with law enforcement is essential. We need
witnesses to feel comfortable coming forward. We need victims
to recognize that they can come forward. And that trust between
law enforcement, our MPD, and communities all around our city
is something that we have worked very hard as a city to build
over time. But like so much, it can be broken very quickly. And
I worry very much about the distrust that has been caused by
the recent events to communities who worked very hard to trust
their MPD and vice versa.
Mr. Bell. And I think people also have to understand the
cost of sustaining the National Guard in a major city like
D.C., or now we are hearing even in my hometown of St. Louis,
is astronomical to send our troops who are trained, who are
supposed to be protecting the homeland, to be coming in and
doing the policing work when we could take a fraction of that
cost, pennies on the dollar, invest that in local law
enforcement who is actually trained, and give them the
resources that they need and keep people safe for fractions of
the cost.
And so, it is just interesting to me that my colleague
would talk about defunding the police when the big ugly bill
actually defunded the police. It cut funding for local law
enforcement, and I do not hear my colleagues saying anything
about that.
With respect to serious crimes, carjacking, I know that was
an issue. What has D.C. been doing to address those issues?
Mr. Schwalb. Well, my office is prosecuting every case,
every carjacking case, every armed carjacking case where we
have sufficient evidence to meet our burden of proof. They are
difficult cases to make from an evidentiary standpoint, from a
witness perspective. And yet more than 84 percent of the cases
that MPD brought to us of carjacking last year, we prosecuted.
So, we need to hold young people accountable and make sure they
face consequences when they are engaged in carjacking.
Mr. Bell. And Mr. Jackson, with the remainder of my time,
thank you for the work that you do. Can you speak to strategies
you have found to be the most effective in actually curbing
recidivism rates in our juveniles?
Mr. Jackson. Well, we know that one of the most important
things you can do is invest in victim services for those who
have been traumatized by violence. As I said before, there are
24 states suing the Trump Administration for withholding $1
billion for victim service funds through the Victims of Crime
Act (VOCA). But we know that the best way we can reduce
violence and recidivism is by investing in those who are most
at risk and those who are most vulnerable, whether that is
community violence intervention, victim services, mentorship
programs, employment-based programs, all of which are under
siege or have been cut by this Administration.
Mr. Bell. Thank you. And with respect to victim services, I
could not agree with you more. It is so important. Sometimes
what gets lost in the argument is we do focus on arresting
serious and violent offenders, which is so important, and also
alternatives to incarceration for low-level offenders
struggling with addiction and mental health. But we also got to
be laser focused on our victims, and that impacts so many of
our communities.
So, I thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman yields back.
Pursuant to the previous order, the Chair declares the
Committee in recess for 5 minutes. We plan to reconvene in 5
minutes.
[Recess.]
Chairman Comer. The Committee will come back to order.
The Committee will now take up Mr. Khanna from California's
motion to subpoena. I recognize Ms. Greene.
Ms. Greene. Mr. Chairman, I move to table the motion to
subpoena.
Chairman Comer. Okay. The motion is not debatable.
As many as are in favor of tabling, signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Comer. All those opposed, signify by saying no.
[Chorus of noes.]
Chairman Comer. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it, and the table is agreed to. The Committee will now resume--
--
Mr. Garcia. Request a recorded vote, please.
Ms. Greene. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. The clerk will
call the vote.
The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
Mr. Jordan. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Jordan votes yes.
Mr. Turner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
Mr. Gosar. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes yes.
Ms. Foxx?
Ms. Foxx. Yes.
The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes yes.
Mr. Grothman?
Mr. Grothman. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes yes.
Mr. Cloud?
Mr. Cloud. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. Cloud votes yes.
Mr. Palmer?
Mr. Palmer. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Palmer votes aye.
Mr. Higgins?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
Mr. Sessions. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes aye.
Mr. Biggs?
Mr. Biggs. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
Ms. Mace?
Ms. Mace. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes aye.
Mr. Fallon?
Mr. Fallon. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes aye.
Mr. Donalds?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Perry votes aye.
Mr. Timmons?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Burchett?
Mr. Burchett. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
Ms. Greene?
Ms. Greene. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Green votes aye.
Ms. Boebert?
Ms. Boebert. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Boebert votes aye.
Mrs. Luna?
Mrs. Luna. Aye.
The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes aye.
Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes aye.
Mr. Burlison?
Mr. Burlison. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes aye.
Mr. Crane?
Mr. Crane. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Crane votes aye.
Mr. Jack?
Mr. Jack. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Jack votes aye.
Mr. McGuire?
Mr. McGuire. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. McGuire votes aye.
Mr. Gill?
Mr. Gill. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Gill votes aye.
Mr. Garcia?
Mr. Garcia. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes no.
Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes no.
Mr. Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes no.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes no.
Mr. Khanna?
Mr. Khanna. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes no.
Mr. Mfume?
Mr. Mfume. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes no.
Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes no.
Ms. Stansbury?
Ms. Stansbury. No to table, yes to subpoena.
The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes no.
Mr. Frost?
Mr. Frost. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes no.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes no.
Mr. Casar?
Mr. Casar. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes no.
Ms. Crockett?
Ms. Crockett. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Crockett votes no.
Ms. Randall?
Ms. Randall. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Randall votes no.
Mr. Subramanyam?
Mr. Subramanyam. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Subramanyam votes no.
Ms. Ansari?
Ms. Ansari. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Ansari votes no.
Mr. Bell?
Mr. Bell. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Bell votes no.
Ms. Simon?
Ms. Simon. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Simon votes no.
Mr. Min?
Mr. Min. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Min votes no.
Mr. Walkinshaw?
Mr. Walkinshaw. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Walkinshaw votes no.
Ms. Pressley?
Ms. Pressley. No to table, yes to subpoena.
The Clerk. Ms. Pressley votes no.
Ms. Tlaib?
Ms. Tlaib. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Tlaib votes no.
Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. I vote aye.
And how has Mr. Timmons been recorded?
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman votes aye.
Mr. Timmons is not recorded.
Mr. Timmons. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes aye.
Chairman Comer. And how has Mr. Higgins been recorded?
The Clerk. Mr. Higgins is not recorded.
Mr. Higgins. Higgins is aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Higgins votes aye.
Chairman Comer. Will the clerk please add the total?
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 24, the
nays are 21.
Chairman Comer. The motion is tabled.
Before I recognize Ms. Greene, I am going to recognize the
Ranking Member.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Obviously, I want to thank Representative Khanna for the
motion, but I also just want to just say that the Chairman and
I have been talking throughout the last 30 minutes or so, and
we are both going to try to work together on an effort to bring
in Mr. Carr in front of the Oversight Committee. And it is of
interest to both the Majority and the Minority, and so we are
going to try to move forward in a bipartisan way to get him in
front of the Committee, so I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Yep.
Mr. Bell. Mr. Chair, I have a U.C.
Ms. Crockett. I do too.
Chairman Comer. I am going to recognize Ms. Norton for
unanimous consent.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent
request. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an
article on the cut to D.C.'s local budget, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, while I know you oppose the cut,
Republicans keep saying today that their Fiscal Year 2026
continuing resolution fixes the $1.1 billion cut they made to
D.C.'s local budget, which consists entirely of local funds, in
the March CR They are misleading the public. The Senate passed
Senator Collins' bill to restore that funding in March. It has
been sitting on the Speaker's desk since then. Republicans can
never undo the last several months----
Chairman Comer. We will enter into the record that
statement. So, without objection, it is entered.
I recognize Ms. Crockett for unanimous consent.
Ms. Crockett. Yes, Mr. Chair, since I was not allowed equal
time to debate, I have a UC. It is from, it looks like, Yahoo
News. It says, ``Charlie Kirk suspect's grandma says family is
all MAGA.''
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Greene from Georgia.
Mr. Bell. Mr. Chair, I have a UC as well.
Chairman Comer. We will recognize you next time.
Ms. Greene, it is your 5 minutes.
Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I can assure you that the 22-year-old man, Tyler Robinson,
that murdered Charlie Kirk is not MAGA. His family may be
Republican, but all of the evidence that is being presented
proves that he is a far leftist, very much integrated in online
groups that are linked to Antifa. He was in a relationship with
a biological male, a so-called furry, whatever that is, that is
transitioning to be a fake woman. He was not MAGA, not one bit.
That is a complete lie. And it is an insult to every single
Republican and person that identifies with those type of
politics. We will not tolerate it.
And that is the exact type of language that is getting many
of us death threats day after day and led to shootings on the
baseball field where Steve Scalise was shot. This is what led
to President Trump nearly being assassinated this past summer.
This is what has led to Charlie Kirk being assassinated. And
so, I just want to give a warning there. We are not going to
tolerate that anymore.
You know something else we are not going to tolerate is
crime. On August 11, President Trump announced major steps to
address the out-of-control crime in the District, thank God,
because this is my fifth year in Congress, and living in D.C.
and working here has been a nightmare. It is. The crime is
ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. And let us talk about some
of that.
Since President Trump thankfully brought in the National
Guard, carjackings have decreased by 87 percent. Nearly 1,200
people have been arrested, including known members of MS-13 and
Trin de Aragua. Those are both foreign terrorist organizations.
By the way, many of them came across the border while Democrats
controlled this country in the past four years.
Federal law enforcement seized nearly 120 firearms and
busted a drug trafficking ring attempting to smuggle fentanyl,
PCP, and cocaine into D.C. A joint effort by ICE and MPD
arrested an illegal alien previously charged with sex crimes
against a child. D.C. went 12 days without a single homicide.
Can you imagine that that is something that the National Guard
had to be here to do? It is unbelievable to anybody that is
right-minded.
U.S. Attorney Pirro reported that 88 percent of arrests
made between the start of the Federal deployment on August 11
and August 25 resulted in charges being filed. This is
substantially higher than in 2024 where the Biden-appointed
U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves charged suspects only 57 percent
of the time. That is because he was busy chasing down MAGA
grandmas that went into the Capitol.
So, I have got a simple question for you. Mayor Bowser, do
you prioritize criminals or the victims?
Ms. Bowser. I prioritize law-abiding D.C. residents,
visitors, and workers.
Ms. Greene. So that would be law-abiding citizens and
victims. Do you support the police, Mayor Bowser?
Ms. Bowser. Yes.
Ms. Greene. Mr. Mendelson, do you prioritize criminals or
victims of criminals?
Mr. Mendelson. I believe in swift and certain justice, and
if somebody----
Ms. Greene. No, I asked you either one. Victims of
criminals, of crime, or the criminals themselves, which one do
you prioritize?
Mr. Mendelson. As I understand the question, victims.
Ms. Greene. Victims. Do you support the police, Mr.
Mendelson?
Mr. Mendelson. Absolutely.
Ms. Greene. Okay. Mr. Schwalb, I ask you the same
questions.
Mr. Schwalb. Unfortunately, hurt people hurt people, so
sometimes victims are victims one day and are perpetrators----
Ms. Greene. So, you prioritize----
Mr. Schwalb [continuing]. The next day.
Ms. Greene [continuing]. The criminals, is that what you
are saying?
Mr. Schwalb. I----
Ms. Greene. Over victims of crime?
Mr. Schwalb. I prioritize making my city as safe as it can
possibly be.
Ms. Greene. I will take that as criminals. Do you support
police, Mr. Schwalb?
Mr. Schwalb. Of course. We work very closely with MPD every
day.
Ms. Greene. Mr. Jackson, the same questions for you.
Mr. Jackson. Definitely prioritize victims. And I stand
with the 24 states that are suing the Trump Administration for
withholding $1 billion in victim service funds.
Ms. Greene. Okay. So, you are against cleaning up crime in
D.C. Thank you for that.
I have got an article here. The D.C. police union head is
the biggest cheerleader of Trump's D.C. police takeover. So,
the police here in the District support the efforts and the
help from the President. However, I have got a quote here from
Mr. Mendelson. You call the union celebrating Trump's takeover
``just despicable.'' You literally attack the police in your
statements. You are calling----
Mr. Mendelson. That is not correct.
Ms. Greene [continuing]. The union supporting the President
and the National Guard here, helping them every day on the
streets, you are quoted as saying, ``That is just despicable.''
Mr. Mendelson. That--you are taking that out of context. I
criticized the president of the FOP because he is a liar.
Ms. Greene. Oh, so you are against the police.
Mr. Mendelson. No. The----
Ms. Greene. Thank you for clearing that up.
Mr. Mendelson. No.
Ms. Greene. Also, I have one----
Mr. Mendelson. The president of the FOP----
Ms. Crockett. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Greene. I also have one last thing, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mendelson. The president of the FOP, not the police.
Ms. Greene. I reclaim my time.
Last here, Mr. Mendelson----
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Greene. You----
Chairman Comer. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Bell.
Ms. Greene. Mr. Chairman, I have a UC request.
Chairman Comer. Okay. State your----
Ms. Greene. I would like to enter for the record----
Mr. Bell. No. I am sorry.
Chairman Comer. All right.
Mr. Bell. Mr. Chair?
Chairman Comer. I am sorry, Ms. Greene. I recognized Mr.
Bell. That is on me. I apologize. We will get you on the next
one.
Ms. Greene. Okay. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. Mr. Bell.
Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I request unanimous consent to enter into the record the
September 9, 2025, article from the LA Times titled, ``Kennedy
commissioned child health report ignores gun violence, the
leading cause of child death,'' which calls out the Trump
Administration for ignoring----
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Bell [continuing]. How gun violence kills more children
in this country than any other cause, and the Administration
ought to be embarrassed by this.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
And now----
Mr. Garcia. I think Ms. Crockett is next.
Chairman Comer. Ms. Crockett is next?
Mr. Garcia. You have a UC?
Chairman Comer. I will recognize Ms. Greene, then Ms.
Crockett. Ms. Greene, do you have a unanimous consent request?
Ms. Greene. I do, thank you.
For the record, Phil Mendelson's post here says ``Repealing
our laws is not liberation. Republicans in Congress cannot be
trusted. They took one billion from us, are moving more than a
dozen bills, rolling back home rule, and are trying to take
away our elected independent Attorney General and micromanaging
our legislative process.'' I hope everybody watched Democrats
vote against the vote that adds $1 billion back in for D.C.
Thank you.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Crockett for a UC.
Ms. Crockett. Yes, I request unanimous consent to enter
into the record this September 16, 2025, article from Time
titled, ``Trump called for a crackdown on the radical left, but
right-wing extremists are responsible for more political
violence,'' which calls out the game the President is playing,
in which he creates a fictional problem while downplaying the
real history of far-right violence against the American public
from the Oklahoma City bombing to January 6. I got another one.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Crockett. All right. The next one is an article from
September 12, 2025. The article is from Democracy Docket
titled, ``I couldn't care less, Trump's downplaying of right-
wing violence continues long pattern,'' which calls out the
game the President is playing, in which he creates a fictional
problem while downplaying the real history of far-right
violence against the American public.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair now recognizes our newest Member, Mr. Walkinshaw
from Virginia.
Mr. Walkinshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I want to express my gratitude to Leader Jeffries
and Ranking Member Garcia for the opportunity to join this
Committee. And Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you
and Members on both sides of the aisle as we conduct our
important work.
My role here gives my constituents in Virginia's 11th
District, which is home to one of the largest concentrations of
Federal employees in the Nation, a voice in conducting
oversight of the Federal Government at a time when the Trump
Administration's reckless DOGE cuts have undermined the
effectiveness, accountability, and integrity of Federal
operations and threatened the livelihoods of the Federal
employees, contractors, and small businesses that I represent.
I am firmly committed to protecting both the critical services
our government provides to everyday Americans and the dedicated
workforce behind them.
With that, I want to thank Mayor Bowser, Chairman
Mendelson, Attorney General Schwalb, and Mr. Jackson for taking
the time to be here today. I also want to welcome--we have a
number of other members of the City Council who have joined us.
Thank you for joining us, and thank you all for your service.
Ten days ago, I was a local government official as well,
serving on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, and that is
a role that gave me an understanding and respect for the
importance of the work that you do as local officials. Local
government is the most accountable level of government because
the decisions you all make directly and immediately impact your
constituents' quality of life. And I know that your
constituents, like mine in Fairfax, are not shy about telling
you all what needs to be done or done differently. As President
Reagan said, that government is best which remains closest to
the people. And you all are closest to the people you
represent, not us.
As Mayor Bowser said, in 1973, Congress passed the D.C.
Home Rule Act to, among other things, grant to the inhabitants
of the District of Columbia powers of local self-government. To
achieve this goal, the Home Rule Act expressly gives D.C.
residents the power to elect their Mayor, legislative body, and
Attorney General. Some of my colleagues, however, while
praising the benefits of local autonomy and authority
elsewhere, seek to strip that autonomy from D.C. residents as
part of an effort to support a Federal takeover of our Nation's
capital by President Donald Trump.
Another stated purpose of the Home Rule Act--and I have not
heard this mentioned today--was to ``relieve Congress of the
burden of legislating upon essentially local district
matters.'' Yet at a time when Congress should be focused on
very urgent national matters, we are trying to micromanage
D.C.'s local affairs in furtherance of President Trump's
attempt to consolidate power.
The American people are facing serious challenges. Our
economy is faltering. Inflation is rising. Tariffs are driving
up prices, and job growth is stagnant. And unless this Congress
acts, tax credits that help working families afford healthcare
will soon expire. In my district, and the districts of everyone
here today, tens of thousands of people will see their
healthcare costs skyrocket. And meanwhile, as has been
mentioned, President Trump continues to cover up the Epstein
files, and a government shutdown is looming.
In the face of all of this, how does the Majority choose to
spend its time? By interfering in D.C.'s local government and
further disenfranchising 700,000 Americans. They claim it is in
the name of public safety. We have heard today from our
witnesses many things that could be done to improve public
safety in the District of Columbia. This is really part of a
broader plan to help President Trump tighten his grip, to help
him feel like he is in control, while distracting from failed
policies.
Our constituents, Mr. Chairman, with the exception of
Delegate Norton, are out there across the country, and they are
wondering why this Congress and this Committee seemingly has no
time to solve the real problems they face in their communities,
but seemingly all the time in the world to cosplay as mayors
and councilmembers for the District of Columbia.
I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Timmons from South
Carolina.
Mr. Timmons. I appreciate our new colleague's prepared
remarks. I have lived in Washington on and off over the last
15, 18 years, for about ten years. And up until two months ago,
this city was in disrepair. It was unsafe. There were thousands
of homeless people that were plaguing our public spaces. There
were rampant mental health issues with these people that were
living in squalor. There was incredible drug use. There were
muggings. There were carjackings. There were just immense
unnecessary violence because our City Council here in
Washington, D.C., refused to do their job. They refused to keep
us safe. They refused to enforce the rule of law. They have a
law that says you cannot sleep in Federal property, that you
cannot sleep in the streets. You know what? Zero enforcement,
zero.
So, yes, President Trump took extraordinary measures which
were necessary to keep this city safe because this is our
Nation's capital. And yes, we will delegate responsibility to
local government. But when they violate the very premise that
we delegate their authority for, which is keeping us safe and
running the city in a safe and efficient manner, they have
violated their obligation to us.
And I have been working on this for the last six years. I
have worked with the Mayor. I have worked with many members of
City Council to try to solve this problem because a lot of it
is complicated. But you know what is not? What is not
complicated is enforcing the rule of law.
And I hate to pick on the Attorney General, but we are
going to have a little conversation. You remember criminal law.
Back in the day, you went to law school, I went to law school.
The two principles of justice are deterrence, which is you have
a criminal justice system that says if you do this, this is the
consequence. Hopefully, that will deter you from doing it,
whether that is carjacking, whether it is going into the CVS
and stealing something, whether it is killing somebody.
Deterrence is one of the principles of justice.
The second principle of justice is retribution, meaning if
a loved one of mine is hurt, killed, I do not take matters into
my own hands because I know that the government, that those
that we have elected in positions of authority will hold them
accountable to whatever degree that our society deems
appropriate.
I was a prosecutor for five years. You are the chief
prosecutor now in D.C. Do you believe that the D.C. criminal
justice system meets the two principles of justice that we
learned week one in law school, deterrence and retribution?
Mr. Schwalb. Well, thank you for the question. Apparently,
I also learned incapacitation and rehabilitation are other
things that we think about our criminal justice system
delivering. When you talk about homelessness, which we all need
to continue to work as hard as we can to drive down, we have to
separate out conduct from status. And I know this is something
you also learned in law school.
Mr. Timmons. All right. We are going to do specific
examples. So, in 2021, two teenage girls brutally murdered
their Uber driver. They literally called the Uber, they lured
him in, they ran over him with his own car. And when they turn
21, they will be let out. So, they are going to get three,
four, five years for murdering someone intentionally. Do you
believe that three, four, five years for murdering someone
intentionally--and by the way, I think they will not have a
criminal record when they age out. Do you think that that is
justice? And do you think that the victim and his family have
gotten retribution?
Mr. Schwalb. Our system has to hold young people
accountable when they commit crimes and hurt people. And when
they are held accountable, they should face swift and certain
consequences----
Mr. Timmons. Do you think four years is enough for murder?
Mr. Schwalb [continuing]. Because that is what we do to try
to make our city safe now and in the future.
Mr. Timmons. Do you think four years is enough for murder?
Mr. Schwalb. Under our system, long punishments are not
what has been proven to deter crime.
Mr. Timmons. All right. That is why----
Mr. Schwalb. It is----
Mr. Timmons [continuing]. You are going to lose----
Mr. Schwalb. If----
Mr. Timmons [continuing]. A lot of power. So again, that is
why you are going to lose authority. You are going to lose
power. Instead of doing that, what you should be doing, you
should be negotiating with the U.S. Attorney for D.C. and say,
all right, we are going to create systems through which we are
going to have deterrence. We are going to say, you do not get
to commit a crime and come out of jail hours later. You do not
get to kill someone and have no criminal record in three or
four years. That is not justice. And if you think that that is
appropriate, you will have zero authority.
And I am telling you right now, you have got to change your
ways. I mean, the intern that was shot and killed in the midst
of, I guess, gang violence, you think that when they age out--I
mean, because they are being federally prosecuted, they are
going to get tried as an adult. Had that not occurred, what
would happen? They would get, what, three, four years for
killing a random 21-year-old?
Mr. Schwalb. Mr. Timmons, nobody cares more about public
safety in our city than the 700,000 of us who live here.
Mr. Timmons. Yes, and you know what?
Mr. Schwalb. The 700,000 people----
Mr. Timmons. For the last 45 days, for the first time, they
have been safe.
Mr. Schwalb. The 700,000 people who have elected----
Mr. Timmons. For the last 45 days.
Mr. Schwalb [continuing]. Local officials and an Attorney
General who reflect----
Mr. Timmons. For the first time----
Mr. Schwalb [continuing]. Their views on how to keep----
Mr. Timmons. Oh, no, no, no, no, no.
Mr. Schwalb [continuing]. Our city safe.
Mr. Timmons. Again, you are going to lose power. You are
going to lose authority because the views that you have are
wrong. They are wrong, and we----
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Mr. Timmons. Free D.C. Yes, D.C. has been free for 45 days.
I yield back.
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for
unanimous consent.
Chairman Comer. Go ahead.
Ms. Stansbury. I would like to ask for unanimous consent to
enter into the record an article from ABC News that said,
``Prosecutors already have dropped nearly a dozen cases from
Trump's D.C. crime surge.'' And I want to just explain briefly,
this is because----
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. Jeanine Pirro is trying to
prosecute----
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Ms. Pressley.
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. Cases that a grand jury----
Chairman Comer. You are taking Ms. Pressley's time.
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. Will not even indict in
because----
Chairman Comer. You are taking Ms. Pressley's time.
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. She is not----
Chairman Comer. Ms. Pressley.
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. Actually indicting crimes.
Chairman Comer. Start the clock. Ms. Pressley.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you to our witnesses for being here
today.
What we are seeing in this moment is chilling. The current
occupant of the White House is sending Federal troops into this
beautiful majority Black city. And let us be plain about who is
being targeted. In this year alone, more than 93 percent of
youth arrests in D.C. were of Black youth. More than 40 percent
of the arrests tied to this Federal surge have been immigrants.
This is not about safety. This is about suppressing Black
leadership, stopping Black progress, and criminalizing Black
and Brown youth.
Mr. Jackson, you have an expertise in reducing crime,
specifically gun violence, and you have researched what works
and actually keeps people safe. We have heard a lot of rhetoric
today, loud, inflammatory, dangerous, misleading at best. So,
let us separate fact from fiction. I will make a statement, and
you will answer with fact or fiction. Let us start.
A 14-year-old has a fully developed brain.
Mr. Jackson. Fiction.
Ms. Pressley. Yes, that is fiction, easy. Middle schoolers
are still learning and growing. Science tells us the brain is
not fully developed until our mid to late 20s, which means
children do not have the same judgment, impulse control, or
decisionmaking capacity as adults. Yet just this week,
Republicans passed legislation that would prosecute children as
adults and send them to adult prisons, children in adult
prisons.
Next question, Mr. Jackson. Fact or fiction, the criminal
legal system incarcerates Black youth at disproportionately
higher rates than White youth?
Mr. Jackson. Fact.
Ms. Pressley. Correct. That is fact. Nationally, Black kids
are six times as likely as White kids to be incarcerated.
In D.C., the focus of today's hearing, the disparities are
even more stark. Despite making up only 51 percent of the youth
population, Black children in D.C. are 98 percent of youth
confinement. For too long, Black youth have been
disproportionately criminalized, policed, and locked up for
normal adolescent behavior rather than receiving the resources
and support that are proven to help them grow and reach their
full potential.
Last one, Mr. Jackson. Fact or fiction, trauma-informed
strategies, like community violence intervention, help to
disrupt cycles of violence?
Mr. Jackson. Fact.
Ms. Pressley. Correct. That is a fact. Investing in
prevention, mental health, and community-based support keeps
people safe. These are real, sustainable solutions. In the
Massachusetts 7th, which I represent, cities like Boston, which
Trump has threatened to attack next, are partnered with
organizations like the Louis D. Brown Peace Institute to make
these investments and are seeing historic lows in crime as a
result.
If Republicans were actually serious about reducing crime,
they would follow that example, but they are so unserious.
Instead of going after predators and pedophiles like Jeffrey
Epstein, they are going after children, passing policies to
ship middle schoolers to adult prisons. That is child abuse,
and it is consistent with their pattern of abuse and neglect
when it comes to all our children.
They let children go hungry by cutting Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). They make children sicker
by cutting Medicaid and taking away vaccines. They strip
environmental protections, leaving more kids gasping for air
during asthma attacks. They rip families apart with cruel
immigration policies as children watch their parents taken away
from classroom windows, and they ignore the strange fruit of
young Black men like Trey Reed hanging from the trees of
Mississippi.
Time and again, Republicans prove they are unserious about
the care, the health, and the future of all our children. They
are invested only in fear and control, and that is what they
are doing here today. Republicans are certainly not keeping us
safe. Free D.C.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Fallon from Texas.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mendelson, thank you for coming today. You chair the
D.C. City Council, and you have since 2012. Is that right?
Mr. Mendelson. Correct.
Mr. Fallon. And you have been on the City Council itself
since 1998?
Mr. Mendelson. Correct.
Mr. Fallon. Twenty-seven years. I do not know when 1998
became 27 years ago, but it is.
Sir, if somebody asked you if you supported soft-on-crime
policies, would you agree with that, or would you vehemently
disagree with that?
Mr. Mendelson. I would vehemently disagree with that.
Mr. Fallon. Okay. So, do you support or oppose President
Trump's executive order to Federalize the D.C. police and
permit the National Guard to assist in law enforcement?
Mr. Mendelson. I did not agree with it on multiple counts.
Mr. Fallon. Okay.
Mr. Mendelson. It attempted to take over the police
department.
Mr. Fallon. Okay.
Mr. Mendelson. I think the National Guard----
Mr. Fallon. And I apologize, it is limited time, but you do
not agree. Okay. Thank you.
Do you think, sir, that D.C. is safe?
Mr. Mendelson. Yes, I do.
Mr. Fallon. Okay. So that is one of the reasons why you
would oppose it because you feel it is safe already. Okay.
Mr. Mendelson. Well, no, that is not completely correct. I
do think----
Mr. Fallon. But, again, limited time, but you do----
Mr. Mendelson. Additional law enforcement----
Mr. Fallon. You said that D.C.----
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. Officers would be helpful.
Mr. Fallon [continuing]. Is safe. Well, yes, it would make
it safer, but you did say it was safe. Do you know who Michael
Pulliam is?
Mr. Mendelson. Do I know what what is?
Mr. Fallon. Michael Pulliam is?
Mr. Mendelson. Not offhand.
Mr. Fallon. Okay. He was the third district police
commander, and he was placed on leave----
Mr. Mendelson. Yes.
Mr. Fallon [continuing]. For questionable changes to----
Mr. Mendelson. Yes.
Mr. Fallon [continuing]. Crime data. And then he said that
leadership and MPD directed falsifying data. Do you know who
Greg Pemberton is? I believe you do because you had an
interchange with Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Mendelson. Yes. And actually, I would like to speak to
that because----
Mr. Fallon. Well----
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. He has tweeted.
Mr. Fallon [continuing]. You know, I do not have the time,
but you do know who he is. And you know that he said that
supervisors frequently ordered officers to report lesser of
felonies. And you said that he was a liar. Is that correct?
Mr. Mendelson. Correct.
Mr. Fallon. Okay.
Mr. Mendelson. And I can tell you why, and I would like to
tell you why.
Mr. Fallon. Okay. Well, I am not interested in that,
honestly, right now, because we have limited time. I wish I had
more time, and we could talk about it more.
Mr. Mendelson. Yes, but he has threatened----
Mr. Fallon. But----
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. Me by tweet in the last hour.
Mr. Fallon. Okay. So, he said that they downgraded certain
categories, so the categories that are not tracked. So very
serious felonies were downgraded. So, we have highly credible
reports and evidence that crime data in D.C. has been
underreported, and there could be very likely a conspiracy to
cook the books.
So, you said that D.C. is safe, so it is interesting and
telling that when you compare D.C. to other capital cities
around the world, let us say Bogota, Colombia, the murder rate
is 15 per 100,000. Lima, Peru, it is 7 1/2. Mexico City is 11.
To give it context, tourist cities like Paris, Madrid, and
London are one out of 100,000. Do you know what the D.C. number
is? I know it varies, but do you know the latest number?
Mr. Mendelson. Well, I know that violent crime per 100,000
for D.C. is about 1,005.
Mr. Fallon. I said the murder rate, murder rate per
100,000. Do you know what that is?
Mr. Mendelson. I would have to do the math.
Mr. Fallon. It is 27 per 100,000, which is much higher than
some of the most dangerous capital cities in the world, so.
Mr. Mendelson. And lower than other cities----
Mr. Fallon. If D.C.----
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. In the United States.
Mr. Fallon. Yes, which are even worse than Honduras. So, if
D.C. was its own country, Mr. Mendelson--there are 193 member
states in the U.N. Where would D.C. rank if you just use the
murder rate?
Mr. Mendelson. Well, I know we would celebrate the
autonomy.
Mr. Fallon. You would celebrate the autonomy, and you would
be the fifth most dangerous country in the world out of 193.
Mr. Mendelson. Yes, sir, I live in the District of
Columbia----
Mr. Fallon. Sir, sir, this is my time.
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. And I feel safe.
Mr. Fallon. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time.
Fifth most dangerous country in the world. And the only
ones that would beat us would be countries like Jamaica,
Ecuador, Haiti, and Honduras. That is not safe. I would say
that is extraordinarily dangerous.
Mr. Schwalb, did you refer to President Trump's efforts as
dangerous and harmful?
Mr. Schwalb. And unlawful.
Mr. Fallon. Okay. Thank you. And it is interesting you say
dangerous and harmful because August 11 through 25, carjackings
were down 87 percent, 1,200 arrests were made, 120 guns were
seized, 88 percent of arrests had charges brought. And for a
12-day period, gloriously in our Nation's capital, nobody was
murdered, not a single homicide. That is an odd definition of
dangerous and harmful.
So there have been, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, soft-on-
crime policies. No cash bail, 89 percent of defendants last
year were not held while awaiting trial, allowing adults as old
as 24 to be treated as minors during sentencing.
All these policies, Mr. Mendelson, that you supported, and
according to D.C. statistics and the FBI, violent crimes in
D.C. when you took over in 1998 compared to last year were up
46 percent. The precise number is right here. So, it is a dire
problem. It is an emergency. There is a clear and present
danger to the good and law-abiding citizens of Washington,
D.C., and not just them, the tourists and all Americans because
this is a unique city. It belongs not just to the residents,
but to all Americans. And it would be the fifth most dangerous
country in the world.
If this was its own country, Mr. Chairman, the United
States, would issue a travel advisory. That is how bad it is.
So, I would applaud, and I do applaud, President Trump's bold
actions for MDCSA, to make D.C. safe again.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Comer. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Tlaib from Michigan.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
You know, I think it is really important--I mean, we are
talking about, you know, 700,000 people that live here, and I
feel like their voice gets completely just dismissed. And so,
if I may, Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record, The Washington Post poll of D.C. residents found eight
in ten opposed Trump's taking over of their local police and
sending in Federal troops.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Tlaib. You know, I think it is also really important to
understand, like, the incredible kind of slanderous, like,
defamation--I do not know what to call it. They are just
burying Washington, D.C. You just heard them speak about our
Nation's capital in that way, in a way that I feel very much
like that is not what I see. I see people walking around with
their families, people enjoying time to see these beautiful,
incredible, beautiful monuments and everything. And there is a
pride here too.
And so, I just want to bring the D.C. residents into this
Committee because I feel like they are being made invisible and
this really ugly picture that is not reflective. And I am from
Detroit. I have seen it happen to my city. And it is despicable
in a way that I feel like, you know, really goes up against our
values.
You know, one of the things that I know in every abuse of
power that, you know, we let President Trump and the
Administration get away with in D.C., it will be replicated. It
will be expanded across the country. And it is going to tear
apart our communities.
You know, Mr. Jackson, I talked to you a little bit about
this, but I think it is important to understand that we do have
a mental health crisis, that we have a housing crisis,
affordability crisis. Can you police any of those away?
Mr. Jackson. No.
Ms. Tlaib. You cannot police away homelessness. And the way
they talk about our homeless neighbors is so, I mean, no wonder
there is violence increasing toward homeless neighbors. I see
it already, the brutality of it. When we see housing costs go
up, when we see, again, the lack or dismissiveness of the
mental health crisis that we continue to grow in it. And it is
not just this Administration, in the previous administrations
as well. No one has moved with the urgency that is needed.
Just last week, you know, the Committee approved over a
dozen bills regarding Washington, D.C. And, you know, I am just
curious. I mean, criminalized children, my colleague from
Boston talked about this. It basically interfered with
legislation already passed by local government. Was anyone on
this panel consulted, any of you? Raise your hand if you were
consulted on any of these bills. Yes.
Mr. Mendelson. We were not.
Ms. Tlaib. You know, one of the things that, you know, AG,
I have been listening to you. You know, one of the bills
actually eliminates your position completely. What effect would
that have, I mean, completely eliminating your position in
regards to being able to do the job that you do to protecting
all the families in Washington, D.C.?
Mr. Schwalb. Well, start with the fact that more than 70
percent of the residents of the District of Columbia
overwhelmingly voted for having an independent elected Attorney
General.
Ms. Tlaib. That is right.
Mr. Schwalb. And that is a recognition of the fact that
when an attorney general is directly accountable to the people,
directly responsive to the people, we are much better at doing
our job in terms of addressing housing affordability and
conditions and slumlords. Seniors and consumers are being
scammed, addressing the issues that are most important to D.C.
residents because I am accountable to them.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes, I read wage theft is an issue, workplace
discrimination, I mean, there is a number of issues that need
to be addressed, and they are not going to address that. They
want to paint you all as this ugly, dark, all just out in the
street. I mean, the way--it is just unbelievable because they
all live here. I do not see it. I do not see what they see. I
do not understand why we are allowing that to happen because I
actually think it is going to hurt our communities. People are
going to look at Washington, D.C., folks, in a way that I think
is going to be very painful, but also, you know--I do not know,
Mr. Jackson. I heard the stories. People did not leave their
homes. They were not leaving their homes. Businesses did not
see people coming in too. I mean, that is what we want in our
Nation's capital? Stay in your house. Do not move. Do not go
anywhere. Stay fearful. It is unbelievable that my colleagues
continue again to eject this narrative and this rhetoric in
regards to it.
But I think it is important, Mr. Chair, just like in D.C.
home rule was won out of Black freedom struggle and the fight
for civil rights, we cannot be passive right now. So, nobody
over there should take anything we say seriously, you know,
like so personally as if we are attacking them. No, we are
attacking a process. We are not attacking people here.
And I think it is really important. We need to stand up
against this fascist takeover. That is not a bad word. It is a
fact. And here in D.C. and across the country, it is so
incredibly important, Mr. Chair, that this Committee does not
allow rhetoric that defames or paints Washington, D.C., in a
way that you all have not really truly seen. You are just
reading it--no, you are just reading it or something off of
some----
Mr. Donalds. Will the gentlelady yield to a question?
Ms. Tlaib. Yes, I think it is really important.
Chairman Comer. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Tlaib. No, I do not yield. I do not even have time. I
can tell you----
Chairman Comer. Well, yes, your time has expired, Ms.
Tlaib.
Ms. Tlaib. It has expired, but, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Comer. I have been nice.
Ms. Tlaib. But you all live here and you are not telling
people the beautiful parts that you do see in our Nation's
capital.
Chairman Comer. Ms. Tlaib.
Ms. Tlaib. And no, no, no. It is just wrong how we are
doing this.
Mr. Donalds. Chairman, I think it is insane----
Chairman Comer. The time has expired.
Mr. Donalds [continuing]. That the gentlelady does not have
an argument----
Ms. Tlaib. But you are going to look at the----
Mr. Donalds [continuing]. But she is going to refer to me
and some of my colleagues----
Ms. Tlaib [continuing]. Kids in Washington, D.C. as a bunch
of criminals.
Chairman Comer. Will you yield to Mr. Donalds?
Ms. Tlaib. Mr. Chair.
Mr. Donalds [continuing]. Like we were from the Third
Reich.
Ms. Tlaib. You know this.
Mr. Donalds. This is insane.
Ms. Tlaib. You are going to look at----
Mr. Donalds. It is insane.
Ms. Tlaib [continuing]. 14-, 15-year-olds as a bunch----
Mr. Donalds. It is insane.
Ms. Tlaib [continuing]. Of criminals.
Mr. Donalds. It is insane. Do I look like a member of the
Third Reich to you, Ms. Tlaib?
Ms. Tlaib. Please. Oh, please.
Mr. Donalds. Is that what I look like to you?
Ms. Tlaib. You are the one taking your voting card----
Mr. Donalds. Is that what you think?
Ms. Tlaib [continuing]. And giving it to somebody who is
committing a crime.
Mr. Donalds. Is that what you think?
Ms. Tlaib. No, that is unethical.
Mr. Donalds. I think it is radical----
Ms. Tlaib. You should----
Mr. Donalds [continuing]. And I think it is insane----
Ms. Tlaib. No, you should be held accountable.
Mr. Donalds [continuing]. And I will respect everything
that you say----
Ms. Tlaib. Sir, you open your mouth.
Mr. Donalds [continuing]. But to say something like that--
--
Ms. Tlaib. You should be held accountable.
Mr. Donalds [continuing]. To myself and a lot of my
colleagues----
Ms. Tlaib. Oh.
Mr. Donalds [continuing]. Is way out of line.
Ms. Tlaib. I am not the one using my----
Chairman Comer. Order.
Mr. Donalds. It is way out of line.
Ms. Tlaib [continuing]. Voting card to someone----
Mr. Mfume. Regular order, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Comer. Yes.
Ms. Tlaib [continuing]. To go vote----
Mr. Donalds. Way out of line.
Chairman Comer. Yes.
Ms. Tlaib [continuing]. So you can go to an event.
Chairman Comer. All right.
Mr. Mfume. Regular order.
Mr. Donalds. That is okay. But it is okay, right?
Ms. Tlaib. No, that is not how it goes.
Mr. Donalds. It is okay, right?
Ms. Tlaib. You hold yourself accountable before you talk
about----
Mr. Donalds. Hold myself accountable?
Ms. Tlaib [continuing]. Washington, D.C.
Chairman Comer. All right. Ms. Tlaib?
Ms. Tlaib. Keep Washington D.C.----
Mr. Donalds. Hold your own self----
Ms. Tlaib [continuing]. Out of your mouth.
Mr. Donalds [continuing]. Accountable. How about that?
Ms. Tlaib. Keep it out of your mouth.
Mr. Donalds. Hold your own self accountable----
Chairman Comer. I am trying, Mr. Mfume.
Ms. Tlaib. Free D.C.
Mr. Donalds [continuing]. How about that?
Ms. Tlaib. Free D.C. And make sure----
Chairman Comer. All right.
Ms. Tlaib [continuing]. You vote with your own voting card.
Do not be giving it to somebody else.
Chairman Comer. Ms. Tlaib? All right. The Chair recognizes
Ms. Boebert from Colorado.
Order. Wait a minute, Ms. Boebert. All right. Order. Ms.
Boebert?
Ms. Boebert. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This has
certainly been lively today.
Madam Mayor, I appreciate you being here today, and I have
a few questions for you. Do you believe in regard to crime,
D.C. City Council is moving the District in the right direction
or wrong direction?
Ms. Bowser. The City Council and I are working----
Ms. Boebert. Right or wrong direction?
Ms. Bowser. We are moving in the right direction.
Ms. Boebert. Now you--okay. Well, why in 2023 did you veto
the Council's updates to the Criminal Code to eliminate most
mandatory minimum sentences, reduce mandatory maximum
penalties, and allow jury trials for misdemeanors?
Ms. Bowser. Well, I made clear at the time my objections to
the rewrite of the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code does need
to be updated.
Ms. Boebert. Your objection was this bill does not make us
safer. Is that correct?
Ms. Bowser. That is what I believe.
Ms. Boebert. Yes, ma'am. Mayor Bowser, as we know, City
Council overruled your veto, and the Criminal Code changes went
into effect 2023. The same year, crime rates rose dramatically.
They overruled your veto, and then we saw crime rates rise
dramatically. Do you believe that this bill contributed to the
dramatic rise in crime that we saw in 2023 that has been
mentioned here today as well by the Council?
Ms. Bowser. Well, the bill did not go into effect, but I
believed that it was necessary for us to look at our entire
public safety ecosystem. Not just that year, but previous
years.
Ms. Boebert. So, you had some foresight that this could
help, and you said this bill does not make us safer. The
Council overruled your veto. And at multiple events this year,
you opposed National Guard deployments in Washington, D.C.
However, since President Trump deployed the National Guard in
D.C., violent crime has dropped nearly 50 percent.
Ms. Bowser. Well, Ms. Boebert, may I?
Ms. Boebert. One moment.
Ms. Bowser. Okay.
Ms. Boebert. I will give you a chance to respond.
Since President Trump deployed the National Guard in D.C.,
violent crime has dropped nearly 50 percent. Property crimes
like burglary, vehicle theft dropped about 25 percent. And
carjacking saw a dramatic 28 percent decline compared to the
same period in 2024. Will you admit, Mayor Bowser, that
President Trump bringing in the National Guard has helped
cleanup this District? And if not, why have you let them stay
here indefinitely?
Ms. Bowser. What I have said is that the increase in
Federal law enforcement--National Guard is not law enforcement.
Ms. Boebert. You have allowed them----
Ms. Bowser. And so----
Ms. Boebert [continuing]. To stay here indefinitely,
though.
Ms. Bowser. The President controls the D.C. National Guard,
and he purports to control the guards from other states.
Ms. Boebert. Have you asked him to remove them?
Ms. Bowser. Yes.
Ms. Boebert. And you would be in favor of that? Do you
think that crime would increase once again?
Ms. Bowser. Ms. Boebert, I put in place a Mayor's order
that is a framework for how D.C. government will work with our
Federal partners.
Ms. Boebert. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Bowser. And they include the FBI, the DEA, the ATF----
Ms. Boebert. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. U.S. Capitol Police----
Ms. Boebert. Sorry, my time is short. I do not mean to step
over you.
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. As well as the United States
Secret Service.
Ms. Boebert. I do want to keep this respectful with you,
and I do not mean----
Ms. Bowser. Yes.
Ms. Boebert [continuing]. To step over you. One more
question, Mayor Bowser. Is cracking down on crime racist, as
many of your Democrat colleagues have suggested?
Ms. Bowser. Our police department has been----
Ms. Boebert. Yes or no, is it racist, ma'am?
Ms. Bowser. Not in D.C.
Ms. Boebert. Thank you, ma'am.
Chairman Mendelson, you believe that cracking down on crime
is racist, correct?
Mr. Mendelson. No. No.
Ms. Boebert. No? Is that not what you said? You said
bringing in large numbers of Federal or National Guard troops
can escalate tensions, particularly in minority neighborhoods.
You also stated that Federal deployments can disrupt daily
life, disproportionately affect minority communities, and
exasperate racial tensions. So?
Mr. Mendelson. Are you asking about the National Guard or
law enforcement?
Ms. Boebert. I said Federal or National Guard troops.
Mr. Mendelson. I do think that----
Ms. Boebert. And we have seen police presence decrease
under this Council and funding----
Mr. Mendelson. I----
Ms. Boebert [continuing]. Be redirected, so I really----
Mr. Mendelson. That is not--that is false.
Ms. Boebert. I really do not care to hear how----
Mr. Mendelson. That is false.
Ms. Boebert [continuing]. Pro-police you are because I have
seen those numbers decrease over the years and funding be
stripped. And so, with the National Guard----
Mr. Mendelson. We have not stripped funding in four years.
Ms. Boebert. It has happened, and crime has increased.
Mr. Mendelson. We--not in four years. What has happened----
Ms. Boebert. And, Chairman Mendelson, if I may.
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. In four years is that we have
not been reimbursed----
Ms. Boebert. So, the Federal deployment----
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. $83 million by the Federal
Government for police.
Ms. Boebert [continuing]. Is disrupting things, and you
said that they can exacerbate racial tensions. So, is it racist
to bring in----
Mr. Mendelson. Militarization is oppressive to
neighborhoods.
Ms. Boebert. Is it racist? Chairman?
Mr. Mendelson. No.
Ms. Boebert. No. Okay. So, are you redacting your
statement?
Mr. Mendelson. No.
Ms. Boebert. Your position? Is----
Mr. Mendelson. Militarization is a problem. I did not say
that was racist, but it is a problem.
Ms. Boebert. Mr. Chairman, you said that it increases
racist tensions. So, I would say that you are characterizing
that as racist, bringing them in.
Mr. Chairman, my time has expired.
Chairman Comer. I thank the lady from Colorado.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Min----
Ms. Ansari. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Comer [continuing]. From California.
Ms. Ansari. Sorry, I have a unanimous consent request if
that is okay.
Chairman Comer. Yes, go ahead.
Ms. Ansari. Thank you.
I request unanimous consent to enter into the record this
May 16, 2024, article from The Washington Post titled, ``A
Congressman spared prison as a teen tells D.C. to be tough on
youth,'' which covers the story of a sitting Congressman who
used a pre-trial diversion program to avoid jailtime----
Ms. Boebert. I think the title has been read, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Ansari [continuing]. For a possession----
Chairman Comer. Without----
Ms. Ansari [continuing]. With intent to distribute and had
a bribery charge.
Ms. Boebert. Mr. Chairman, the title----
Chairman Comer. Yes.
Ms. Boebert [continuing]. Has been read.
Ms. Ansari. And yet, that is----
Chairman Comer. Without----
Ms. Boebert. Mr. Chairman, the title has been read.
Ms. Ansari. That is the level of----
Ms. Boebert. We are not reading the entire document.
Chairman Comer. Ms. Ansari, all you have to do is say the
title----
Mr. Donalds. Chairman?
Chairman Comer [continuing]. And the publisher. So, without
objection.
Mr. Donalds. Mr. Chairman, and since the gentlelady's
referring to me, I wonder if she would like to debate the
actual topic. I am more than prepared to debate the topic. I
have been doing it my entire life.
Chairman Comer. Do you want to?
Mr. Min. You voted illegally your entire life?
Chairman Comer. Would the lady yield to the gentleman from
Florida?
Ms. Ansari. No, it is not a debate. It is an article that,
obviously, you admit is about you, about how you were spared
prison as a teen and now want to not----
Mr. Donalds. Actually----
Ms. Ansari [continuing]. Allow other young people----
Mr. Donalds. And actually, for the gentlelady----
Ms. Ansari [continuing]. That same opportunity.
Mr. Donalds [continuing]. Let us be very clear. The article
is wrong. The article is wrong, and I am on the record stating
that repeatedly. I have never been proud of what happened when
I was 18 years old or 20 years old. I was wrong. And under the
laws of the State of Florida, I was held accountable for that
as an adult. So, let us be very clear about what was written in
that article, which is wrong, that does not coincide with the
language that I passed off the House Floor the other day.
If you want to read articles and put them in the record,
let us be clear about what they are. And since I am the only
subject matter expert----
Mr. Min. Point of order.
Mr. Donalds [continuing]. On that article, I would like to
set the record straight right now. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. All right.
Ms. Crockett. I am requesting equal time. I am sorry, Mr.
Chair?
Chairman Comer. Was the article about you, Ms. Crockett?
Ms. Crockett. It was not about me.
Chairman Comer. Okay.
Ms. Crockett. But it was----
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Min.
Ms. Crockett. But it was a unanimous consent, which----
Mr. Donalds. Mr. Chairman, I am actually----
Ms. Crockett [continuing]. Are not debatable.
Mr. Donalds. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to take on all
comers.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes----
Mr. Donalds. So, I entertain it.
Chairman Comer. If somebody tries to put an article in
about you--and I have read a few----
Ms. Crockett. Well, I am sure you all want to talk----
Chairman Comer [continuing]. But we have not put them in.
Ms. Crockett [continuing]. About my private school, honey.
Chairman Comer. If somebody does, you can defend yourself.
Mr. Min?
Mr. Min. Thank you, Mr. Chair, appreciate the opportunity
to speak today.
I want to be clear, though. This Committee continues to
fail to conduct oversight on the most important issues that my
constituents care about. Whether it is the allegations of
chronic and extreme law breaking by ICE; the politicization of
the DOJ, FCC, and other executive branch offices to go after
Trump's critics; the repeated attacks on Congress' article 1
authorities, including the illegal taxation of goods imported
into the United States, tariffs; or the illegal withholding of
funds appropriated by Congress, a.k.a. impoundments, and on and
on and on. And incredibly, virtually the entire Republican
caucus has refused to sign the discharge petition to release
the entire Epstein files.
Earlier this year, GOP leadership recessed early, hoping
that the Massie-Khanna discharge petition would fade away, but
that is not going to happen. We are going to keep fighting. We
are now one vote shy of the 218 needed.
Chairman Comer. Would the gentleman yield to a question
from the Chairman?
Mr. Min. Four Republicans, including three on this
Committee, have been brave enough to sign that petition.
Chairman Comer. Would the gentleman yield to a question?
Mr. Min. Meanwhile, the rest of the conference continues to
stay silent.
Chairman Comer. Would you yield to a question from me?
Mr. Min. Absolutely.
Chairman Comer. Are you not keeping up with the Oversight
Committee? We have requested more information than the
discharge petition. And I think you are trying to create a
false narrative that this Committee is not doing anything or
Republicans are not doing anything. This Committee has been
very aggressive----
Mr. Min. I applaud the work----
Chairman Comer [continuing]. On Epstein.
Mr. Min [continuing]. That the Committee is doing, but it
is proceeding piecemeal. And the discharge petition, as I
understand it, would require the entire release of the Epstein
files. They are not inconsistent with each other, and I think
that----
Chairman Comer. And then it has to go to the Senate----
Mr. Min. I would urge you, respectfully, to consider
signing on to that.
Chairman Comer. You want us to just wait? Do you want us to
just drop everything in the Epstein and wait----
Mr. Min. I do not understand----
Chairman Comer [continuing]. For the Senate?
Mr. Min [continuing]. Why the Oversight Committee cannot do
oversight while also signing on to the discharge petition.
Because we are asking for piecemeal items from the FBI and DOJ.
We are not asking, as I understand it, for the entire Epstein
files.
Chairman Comer. And we have asked for everything. We have
asked for everything. Now I will yield back to your time.
Mr. Min. Thank you. And if I could have a little more time,
I would appreciate it.
I urge my colleagues to fulfill our constitutional
responsibilities and to do right by the survivors and sign on
to that. And respectfully, Mr. Chair, I would urge you to
consider that as well.
But I wanted to turn to today's hearing because I believe
this is largely political theater meant to distract us from the
fact that Donald Trump is illegally deploying thousands of
military troops in the streets of Washington, D.C., following
on his illegal deployment of military personnel in Los Angeles.
And now he is threatening to deploy the military in cities like
Chicago, New York, and Portland over the objections of the
local mayors and Governors.
Now, as a reminder, state Governors have broad latitude to
call up their National Guard. But the President's authority is
very limited, and it is limited under title X authority, which
is expressly limited to three circumstances: one, when the
United States is invaded or in danger of invasion by a foreign
nation; two, there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion
against the authority of the government of the United States;
or three, the President is unable, with regular forces, to
execute the laws of the United States.
So, I want to ask you all to raise your hands if you agree
with the following question. Do you believe the United States
is being invaded? I want to note for the record there are no
hands raised.
Do you believe there is a rebellion happening?
Mr. Mendelson. No.
Ms. Bowser. No.
Mr. Min. Again, no hands raised.
Do you believe the President is unable to execute the laws
of the United States without the National Guard?
Mr. Schwalb. No.
Ms. Bowser. No.
Mr. Mendelson. No.
Mr. Min. No hands raised. That is right. Donald Trump,
ironically, is using a trumped-up crisis over crime to break
the law.
Ms. Boebert. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Min. No. In January 2024----
Ms. Boebert. You did not ask us this last year.
Mr. Min [continuing]. A group called United to Protect
Democracy published a report entitled, ``The Authoritarian
Playbook for 2025,'' which warned explicitly that if Trump were
elected, he would likely follow the same playbook used by
authoritarians like Vladimir Putin in Russia, Recep Erdogan in
Turkey, Viktor Orban in Hungary, and others. It outlines a
number of actions they expected President Trump to take during
his second term.
So, I want you to raise your hand if you think the Trump
Administration is doing the following: issuing pardons to
license lawbreaking?
Mr. Mendelson. Yes.
Mr. Min. Raise your hands if you agree with that.
Directing investigations against critics and rivals?
Mr. Mendelson. Yes.
Ms. Bowser. Yes.
Mr. Min. Regulatory retaliation?
Mr. Mendelson. Yes.
Mr. Min. Federal law enforcement overreach?
Mr. Mendelson. Yes.
Mr. Min. Domestic deployment of the military?
Mr. Mendelson. Yes.
Mr. Min. It probably will not surprise you to know that
this is exactly what these authors predicted Trump would take
as far as actions if he were elected to a second term.
But one ironclad rule that is still potentially being
forced is the Posse Comitatus Act, which clearly prohibits the
use of military personnel, including the National Guard, for
law enforcement activities unless specifically authorized by
Congress such as with the Insurrection Act.
Now, I have actually asked a lot of the National Guardsmen
here that I have run into on the streets whether they are
allowed to assist with law enforcement, and they have
consistently told me that the answer is no. I asked a Guardsman
just earlier today what would happen if he saw crime happening
right in front of him. He said he could take pictures, videos,
he could call the cops, but he is not allowed to engage.
So, I am really appreciative of those who serve in our
National Guard, and I am really, really appreciative that,
unlike Donald Trump, they are following the law. But this is
also just massively wasteful and disrespectful to our National
Guardsmen who have been pulled from their families, their jobs,
and their communities, all to essentially serve as human
scarecrows, or even worse, to clean up our streets and do our
landscaping. This is not what our guardsmen were trained to do.
It is not what they are signing up to do.
It is also massively expensive. President Trump's
deployment of the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles
cost over $120 million. The D.C. National Guard's deployment of
958 guardsmen will cost over $200 million. And while we do not
know yet what the deployment of the 1,300 plus other guardsmen
sent from other states will cost, it is likely to be much
higher because we are paying for their lodging as well. So,
basically, we are looking at a deployment cost of over a half a
billion dollars for this D.C. deployment, which is doing
nothing to stop crime. You could hire thousands of cops with
that money.
So, Mayor Bowser, I want to ask you a question. What would
be more effective in deterring and preventing crime? Deploying
over 2,000 National Guardsmen at a cost of hundreds of millions
of dollars, or sending that money to D.C. for additional law
enforcement and crime prevention programs?
Ms. Bowser. Sending----
Chairman Comer. And the gentleman's time has expired, but
the Mayor can answer the question.
Mr. Min. I think you took up about a minute of my time,
though, sir.
Chairman Comer. Oh, we stopped the clock. I watched it.
Mr. Min. No, you did not, actually.
Chairman Comer. We stopped it.
Mr. Min. It did not stop.
Chairman Comer. We stopped it.
Ms. Bowser. I would say sending the money to D.C.,
restoring our 2025 approved budget as a start would also help.
And additionally, we can do more than law enforcement. We can
also assist the Federal Government with their parks.
Mr. Min. I appreciate that answer, and I would just close
by saying this. If Trump were serious about stopping crime, he
would send greater resources to local law enforcement and try
to tackle the root causes. Instead, he is illegally sending
troops into our cities, even as he is pardoning criminals,
defunding the FBI, and reallocating our scarce Federal
resources to going after nonviolent offenders. This makes,
like, day laborers, children----
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Min [continuing]. This is making our communities more
dangerous, not more safe.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes----
Mr. Min. I yield back.
Chairman Comer [continuing]. Florida's favorite son, Mr.
Donalds.
Mr. Min. And I would like to, with unanimous consent,
introduce this article titled ``D.C.----
Chairman Comer. I have already recognized Mr. Donalds. You
can do it in a minute.
Mr. Donalds?
Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This has been a very interesting hearing for a myriad of
reasons. Mayor Bowser, thanks for being here with us. I do
appreciate you taking the time today.
It was said earlier that in 1973, Congress did pass the
D.C. Home Rule Act. It is known on Capitol Hill, it is known,
quite frankly, through our entire constitutional republic, that
any Congress cannot bind a future Congress, just like at the
state level a legislature cannot bind a future legislature,
that something that is enacted can be modified or undone in the
future.
I was able to have a conversation with a lot of the people
from the Free D.C. organization. Some of them might still be in
the room today. And that was the constant point that we came
back to, that, yes, under the law passed in 1973, your position
was created. The D.C. City Council's position was created. But
the ultimate authority for the federal district is still the
U.S. Congress and with the signature of the President of the
United States. Would you agree with that assessment?
Ms. Bowser. I would agree. And I would also add it is
within the power of this Congress to advance the D.C. statehood
bill. By simple majority, this Congress can, like it has done
for every state in the union outside of the first 13, admit
D.C. as a state.
Mr. Donalds. I am glad you actually brought that up because
one of the reasons why I oppose the D.C. statehood bill is
because the Constitution and the framers were actually quite
clear that they did not want the federal district, per se, to
be leveraged by a state or any state. And I think I had
conversations with several residents of D.C. who were walking
through the halls of Capitol Hill when then-Speaker Pelosi was
bringing that up. And I asked them two very important
questions. If you want to have representation, why don't we
allow that property to be re-annexed by the State of Maryland,
which actually provided the land for the Federal district to be
created? Or would the citizens of the District of Columbia
prefer not to be subject to Federal income taxes as a result of
them not having ``representation''?
Ms. Bowser. I do----
Mr. Donalds. What is your thought on that?
Ms. Bowser. I do think it is time to talk about what the
District pays and what we get back. I do think it is time to
have that conversation.
Mr. Donalds. That is a fair conversation to have. I have
got a couple of questions for you. Let us get to the business
of the matter.
Since President Trump authorized the National Guard to be
in D.C., how much has crime decreased in the District of
Columbia?
Ms. Bowser. I think it is important--and I have noticed
that this has happened throughout this conversation--that you
talk about the National Guard, and you do not talk about
Federal law enforcement. And the Federal surge consisted of
Federal law enforcement, which MPD works with all the time. I
am talking about the FBI, the DEA----
Mr. Donalds. Mayor Bowser, I am really not trying to
disrespect you----
Ms. Bowser. I, yes, I understand.
Mr. Donalds [continuing]. But how much has crime
decreased----
Ms. Bowser. Oh, I----
Mr. Donalds [continuing]. Since the President took action?
Ms. Bowser. I mentioned already the--and let me look----
Mr. Donalds. Sure.
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. At my numbers, that the Federal
surge produced a 39 percent decrease in violent crime.
Mr. Donalds. Thirty-nine percent decrease in----
Ms. Bowser. Yes.
Mr. Donalds [continuing]. Violent crime----
Ms. Bowser. And that is on top----
Mr. Donalds [continuing]. In the Nation's capital.
Ms. Bowser. Let me just add, that is on top of the 26
percent decrease that we were already experiencing.
Mr. Donalds. So, it seems that the President's surge was
more effective than your own efforts. Wouldn't you say?
Ms. Bowser. It accelerated----
Mr. Donalds. Last time I checked, 39 percent is way higher
than 26 percent.
But let me move on. Let me move on.
Mr. Mendelson. But the full statistic is a little
different.
Mr. Donalds. Hold on. Chairman Mendelson, I did not ask you
a question.
Mr. Mendelson. I know, but the----
Mr. Donalds. Relax. Hang on.
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. Full statistic is a little
different.
Mr. Donalds. Actually, Chairman, let me ask you this
question.
Mr. Mendelson. Sure.
Mr. Donalds. Because you butted in, now let me ask you.
Mr. Mendelson. Sure.
Mr. Donalds. What is the current status of the Metropolitan
Police Department in terms of staffing? How many officers do
you have on the beat?
Mr. Mendelson. I believe it is less than 3,100----
Mr. Donalds. Okay. Is the MPD fully----
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. Which is much lower than it
should be.
Mr. Donalds. Is the MPD fully staffed?
Mr. Mendelson. In my view, no.
Mr. Donalds. Question--hold on. Hold that point. Here is
the question. So, is a surge of Federal law enforcement into
the Federal enclave, which the Mayor has acknowledged is the
primary responsibility of the Federal Government, primary
responsibility, isn't it simple logic to say that the
President's surge has been helpful to safety and security in
the District of Columbia, Chairman?
Mr. Mendelson. The additional law enforcement resources has
been good. We work with those different agencies all the time.
There was more of it, more of a good thing. National Guard is
separate. ICE is separate.
Mr. Donalds. Question for you, Chairman. You said something
I want to expound. You have been working with the Federal
Government during this surge----
Mr. Mendelson. And before.
Mr. Donalds [continuing]. That was brought by President
Trump and before.
Mr. Mendelson. And before.
Mr. Donalds. So, you have been working with him through
this entire time?
Mr. Mendelson. With the Federal like DEA, FBI----
Mr. Donalds. Okay.
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. NPS, Park Police. It is----
Mr. Donalds. Mayor Bowser, you would concur that you guys
have been working with the President of the United States
throughout this entire period, correct?
Ms. Bowser. Mr. Donalds, you know I work with every
President----
Mr. Donalds. I know, but I am just----
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. Including President Trump----
Mr. Donalds. I am trying to establish a baseline.
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. In Trump 1 and in Trump 2.
Mr. Donalds. And I thank you for that, Mayor Bowser.
Ms. Bowser. Yes, that is our job.
Mr. Donalds. I am just trying to establish----
Ms. Bowser. As do all of--we all stand ready to work with--
we are unique. The District of Columbia is unique in that----
Mr. Donalds. Mayor Bowser?
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. We are always going to have----
Mr. Donalds. Mayor Bowser?
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. A relationship with the----
Mr. Donalds. Mayor Bowser, I am out of time, so I have got
to reclaim.
Ms. Bowser. Sorry, sorry.
Mr. Donalds. I apologize.
Ms. Bowser. Yep.
Mr. Donalds. I agree, Mayor Bowser.
Ms. Bowser. Yes.
Mr. Donalds. The district is unique. The district is not
like any other city in the United States. It is the Federal
enclave. I commend you and your team for working with the
President of the United States to keep the District safe. I
really do. I think it is important for a lot of people who are
saying that they are upset with the President, that your own
Mayor and your own Chairman of the City Council has
acknowledged that crime has gone down while working with the
President. Let us work together. Let us give peace a chance.
I yield back.
Mr. Min. Mr. Chair?
Chairman Comer. Thank you, Mr. Donalds.
Mr. Min, I will recognize you now for your----
Mr. Min. I ask unanimous consent to introduce into the
record an article from the USA Today entitled, ``D.C. National
Guard deployment to cost $200 million, as soldiers pick up
trash, blow leaves.''
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Donalds. Mr. Chairman, I actually have a point of
personal privilege.
Chairman Comer. Yes, state your point.
Mr. Donalds. It was raised earlier in an article about me,
so let us just get to it.
Ms. Crockett. I thought we did this already.
Mr. Donalds. No, well, we are doing it again because your
name was not raised, so now we get to do it twice. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. He is being recognized for a point of
privilege.
Mr. Donalds. It is a point of personal privilege.
Ms. Crockett. Okay. Well, we are going to need one too.
Mr. Donalds. Thank you very much. I do not think it is
really personal for you, Madam.
Let us be clear about a couple of things. Yes, when I was
18 and 20, I was arrested twice. I was. I made a lot of
mistakes when I was young. I have admitted them. I have had to
live with them my entire life. Every day since the age of 21, I
have had to purpose myself to be a better man than I was the
day before. That is something that was afforded to me by the
laws of the State of Florida, and I am grateful for that
opportunity. And now I am here in the Nation's capital doing my
job.
In Florida, when I got into my trouble, I was not tried as
a juvenile. I was tried as an adult because I was an adult. And
since that point in time, I have worked, whether it is at the
state level or here at the Federal level, to make sure that our
criminal justice policies and systems actually make sense and
they are built to secure and protect the citizens that we all
serve. That is a mission I have been on ever since.
Ms. Crockett. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Donalds. I am not going to yield because it is a
personal point of privilege. It is not for you. Thank you.
Ms. Crockett. I just wanted to clarify.
Mr. Donalds. So, for the record, I wanted to make that
point be clear. Yes, I am the author of the D.C. Crimes Act.
Yes, I believe that adults over the age of 18----
Ms. Stansbury. Mr. Chairman, this is not----
Mr. Donalds [continuing]. Should be held accountable as
adults.
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. A campaign ad for----
Mr. Donalds. That is all.
Ms. Stansbury [continuing]. The gentleman's governorship.
Mr. Donalds. This is not a campaign ad. I am stating it for
the record because it was raised by the gentlelady. I am sorry
I did not catch your name. I know you are a freshman Member of
the House, and I have never had a chance to meet you, but it
was raised, so I wanted to provide a response because my name
was brought up in an article submitted for the record. I think
I am done now.
Ms. Crockett. Point of information.
Mr. Donalds. I yield.
Ms. Crockett. Point of information.
Chairman Comer. State your point.
Ms. Crockett. The gentleman from Florida just referenced
the bill that he authored, and I just want to clarify, is the
Chair aware as to whether or not, under current D.C. law, it
allows the Attorney General----
Chairman Comer. That is not a point of information.
Ms. Crockett. Okay. Well, it is a question, point of
inquiry.
Chairman Comer. We can talk about it later.
Ms. Crockett. We will do an inquiry. I am trying to
clarify----
Chairman Comer. It is not a parliamentary inquiry.
All right. The Chair recognizes Ms. Ansari.
Ms. Ansari. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to say, but we
all know why you have called this hearing. This is one more
attempt to cover for the Trump White House, which is itself
engaged in a massive, massive coverup to shield the President
and his allies from accountability. No one is fooled as to why,
suddenly, the President of the United States is declaring
emergencies in cities across the country and deploying armed
troops against American citizens, despite the fact that crime
rates, at least in the District of Columbia, are at a 30-year
low.
This is very obviously a blatant and egregious attempt to
redirect attention from a very real and ongoing crime, the
crime which is the massive and epic coverup for Jeffrey
Epstein's abuse and that of other rich and powerful men who
engaged with and supported him over the course of decades. Some
of those very men are in the White House right now.
Donald Trump wants so badly for the Epstein story to go
away. Trump sued The Wall Street Journal for $10 billion for
reporting about this letter, not surprising, as we are seeing
what is happening now with the alarming authoritarian attacks
on the free press. This was one of many examples. But he
claimed this letter did not exist. Here it is, this grotesque,
disgusting, misogynistic letter which Donald Trump sent to
Jeffrey Epstein. He probably laughed. He probably thought this
was hilarious, laughing about the abuse of literally thousands
of underage girls at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine
Maxwell, and his powerful rich friends, and then lying about
it, repeatedly, to this day.
Why? Why lie about it? Donald Trump now claims this is not
his handwriting, which is a comical excuse. And House
Republicans are covering for him. Why are House Republicans
covering for Donald Trump?
They are holding this absurd hearing about crime in D.C. to
distract the public from the very real national issues at hand.
These are the people that Trump and House Republicans are
covering for. Trump's Department of Justice moved Ghislaine
Maxwell, Epstein's right-hand accomplice in the sexual abuse of
underage girls, to a minimum-security prison, all to buy her
silence.
You know, Donald Trump sent his former personal defense
attorney, who is now the deputy Attorney General of the United
States, to sit down with Ghislaine Maxwell and to transcribe
her remarks word for word, releasing this liar's version of the
truth to the world. Why would the Trump Department of Justice
endorse a convicted liar, Ghislaine Maxwell's version of the
truth?
Many of us here in this room actually sat with the victims,
the survivors of Epstein, and they were understandably shaken
and livid by the fact that a convicted child sex abuser and
trafficker was given such a massive platform to continue to
spread her lies. Donald Trump did that. Trump's DOJ did that.
When FBI Director Kash Patel was asked about it in the
Senate, he said he had no idea why she was moved to a minimum-
security prison. Don't House Republicans have any interest in
investigating that? No? They do not care? Instead, they want
answers to the really important questions, questions like, how
many trash bags did the National Guard pick up today? Or how
many traffic tickets have been given out in D.C. this week? Or
how many drunk college students needed to have the National
Guard call them Ubers so they could get home? These are the
tough questions that House Republicans want answers to.
So, let us just be very clear. The biggest criminal in
Washington, D.C., the criminal who was besties with Jeffrey
Epstein and was already found liable of sexually abusing E.
Jean Carroll, the criminal who should be investigated not only
for those crimes but now this massive coverup is Donald John
Trump.
What I want to know is, who instructed the Bureau of
Prisons to move Ghislaine Maxwell? What did the Trump
Administration promise her to remain silent? Why is FBI
Director Patel claiming that no other men victimized underage
girls and women through the sex trafficking operation organized
by Epstein and Maxwell, which is obviously false, and we heard
as much from the women? Did House Republicans collude with the
White House to change their tune on the Epstein files? And what
is Donald Trump so afraid of? Why won't he just release the
unredacted Epstein files, which he could do literally at any
moment?
Unfortunately, we will have to continue to wait to get
these answers. Also, Republicans can find out how many stray
cats need to be dealt with on the streets of Washington, D.C.
I yield back.
Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Burchett from
Tennessee.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think it needs to be said that the Democrats had those
files for four years and chose not to do anything with them,
and now currently, they are obsessed with it. I think that
speaks volumes.
But thank you all for being here. Mayor, thank you, ma'am.
I was a county mayor. It was the best job I think I have ever
had.
Ms. Bowser. Thank you.
Mr. Burchett. And on days like today, I am sure you are
thinking, dadgum I wished I had not run for this office, should
have sold Amway or something.
But anyway, I have a couple questions for you, ma'am. Has
President Trump's response to the spike in violent crime in
Washington, D.C., lowered the rate of violent crime?
Ms. Bowser. I have already testified to the purity of 30 to
34 days we saw a decrease on top of the decreases that we are
experiencing already this year.
Mr. Burchett. Okay. Yes, ma'am. But when you are the 435th
most powerful Member of Congress, I have to ask those questions
again so.
Ms. Bowser. Yes, yes.
Mr. Burchett. Just act like you have never heard that----
Ms. Bowser. Okay. Okay. You got it.
Mr. Burchett [continuing]. And I deserve a Pulitzer Prize
for my questioning.
Have the criminal justice policies created by the D.C. City
Council led to the spike in violent crime in Washington, D.C.?
Ms. Bowser. In my experience, Congressman, there is not one
single thing that you point to when crime goes up, and it is
usually not one single thing you point to when crime goes down.
So, my experience as Mayor and as a member of the Council
before that is to throw everything at it. We look at the laws.
We look at our deployment strategies. We look at our prevention
strategies until we see results. And that is what we have seen
over the last two years.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Mendelson, why does your Council continue to push these
soft-on-crime policies when violent crime apparently has
skyrocketed in Washington, D.C., as a result?
Mr. Mendelson. Well, I do not agree that we have done that.
In fact, in my statement at the beginning, I noted a number of
changes to the law that we, that the Council has----
Mr. Burchett. Well, yesterday, though, we stepped in and
have changed a couple of those laws that we felt like proved
that you all were soft on crime.
Mr. Mendelson. One of those was the age of 14. That
actually was adopted by Congress in 1970.
Mr. Burchett. Okay. What about the one where they are not
allowed to chase someone who has stolen a car?
Mr. Mendelson. We revised that law. I believe it was last
year.
Mr. Burchett. Yet, we had to----
Mr. Mendelson. When I say revised, there were complaints we
were hearing from the police chief, and we made changes to that
law.
Mr. Burchett. Okay. In your statement regarding oversight
efforts, you stated that these bills were a completely
unnecessary intrusion on the District's ability to make and
enforce our laws because of the recent work that Council has
been doing to combat crime. Are you aware that juvenile crime
in Washington, D.C., has increased every year since 2020?
Mr. Mendelson. I do not believe that is correct. But the
data, the Attorney General would have the----
Mr. Burchett. Okay.
Mr. Mendelson [continuing]. Exact data. But I will say that
we--juveniles should not be involved in crime. And that should
be the goal of any society, of any community, and that is our
goal. We do not want juveniles involved in crime. We want them
in school. We want them learning. We want them to have every
opportunity to achieve as an adult.
Mr. Burchett. Okay. In 2021, Mayor Bowser requested $11
million for additional funding for police officers. In
response, junior colleagues on the D.C. City Council proposed a
compromise package that would appropriate $5 million to police
officers in various amounts to gun safety initiatives, because,
as is quoted, ``because the solution cannot solely be more
police.'' Why have you consistently tried to impede the work
and support systems for police officers?
Mr. Mendelson. Well, we have not consistently. So, that is
true about 2020 for the Fiscal Year 2021 budget. Every year
since then, we have fully funded the request for MPD for hiring
officers and for paying officers. Just yesterday, we adopted a
13 percent pay raise for police officers. So, I do not agree
that consistently. I would also note MPD has a budget of about
$500 million. I think it is actually more than that now. So,
when you talk about $5 million, I do not think that is even one
percent. That is a 10th of a percent. But that was five years
ago.
Mr. Burchett. But you would gladly turn that money back in
then?
Mr. Mendelson. Well, in my testimony earlier, I noted that
we have been asking the Federal Government every year for
reimbursement through the appropriation process for the
Emergency Planning and Security Fund (EPSF) and that the
Congress has shorted us a total of $83 million over the last
four years. So, you can ask me about $5 million----
Mr. Burchett. Over the last how many years?
Mr. Mendelson. Four.
Mr. Burchett. Four years.
Mr. Mendelson. $83 million.
Mr. Burchett. Okay. That would be during the Biden
Administration.
General Schwalb, did I say that right, Schwalb? You said
kids----
Mr. Schwalb. You did. You did, thank you.
Mr. Burchett [continuing]. Should not be treated as adults.
At what age does a kid become an adult?
Mr. Schwalb. Under our law, children are considered
juveniles until they are 18.
Mr. Burchett. Okay. Thank you.
And I am out of time. Again, thank you all for being here.
Mayor----
Mr. Mendelson. Thank you.
Ms. Bowser. Thank you.
Mr. Burchett [continuing]. It was a pleasure, ma'am.
Ms. Bowser. Thank you.
Chairman Comer. Thank you, gentlemen.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Crockett from Texas.
Ms. Crockett. Okay. I am going to try to go really fast
because I got a lot to cover, so I am starting with the AG. I
want you to tell me whether or not it is lawful or lawless,
ignoring court orders?
Mr. Schwalb. That is lawless.
Ms. Crockett. Impounding congressional funds?
Mr. Schwalb. Violates the law.
Ms. Crockett. Invoking emergency powers when there is no
emergency?
Mr. Schwalb. Unlawful.
Ms. Crockett. Sending troops without an invite?
Mr. Schwalb. Violates the law.
Ms. Crockett. Covering for pedophiles? I just threw that
one in there. Okay. I will move to the next one.
What about revoking birthright citizenship?
Mr. Schwalb. Violates the 14th Amendment of the
Constitution.
Ms. Crockett. How about violating due process?
Mr. Schwalb. Violates the Fifth and 14th Amendment of the
Constitution.
Ms. Crockett. How about what we see happening with
redistricting that would in some way minimize, if not delete,
the voices of people of color as they are going through and
illegally going through this process? Is there a constitutional
amendment that you can think of that is associated with that?
Mr. Schwalb. Probably many, but it is unlawful.
Ms. Crockett. Okay.
Mr. Schwalb. And unconstitutional.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you.
Mr. Schwalb. And un-American.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you. As well as can you tell me if it
is lawful or lawless to violate free speech?
Mr. Schwalb. That is lawless.
Ms. Crockett. Okay. Sounds about right because, you know,
we had to have a conversation about Jimmy Kimmel, so I am going
to say free Jimmy Kimmel for sure. And hopefully, we will deal
with the FCC Chairman.
But the reason that I wanted to go through that long list--
and that was actually not even the half of it--is because since
this Administration has come in on January 20, they have
engaged in some form of every single thing that I said on that
list, even the part about covering for pedophiles. So, my
question is, why are we sitting here today? Number one, they
already passed their bootleg laws, and it is clear that even
the bill author is not well-informed about what his bill does
because, as has already been stated, at the age of 18, you are
an adult. So, this idea that somehow 21-year-olds were now
somehow juveniles under D.C. law, is that accurate or
inaccurate?
Mr. Schwalb. It was inaccurate.
Ms. Crockett. Is it----
Mr. Schwalb. Misunderstood the way the law works.
Ms. Crockett. Correct. Could not understand how to read the
law, and decided that they were going to rewrite the law and
mess up the law. And to be clear, we were talking about judges
being able to have enough discretion to decide whether or not
they were going to give someone an opportunity maybe to clean
their record, such as the bill author was given that
opportunity under Florida law because his second felony was
picked up when he was 21, to be clear. So, he was older than
18. And under this law, if you were under, what, 25, so 24 or
under, then the judges had discretion, correct?
Mr. Schwalb. But only in certain kinds of cases.
Ms. Crockett. And----
Mr. Schwalb. Not the most serious cases. And in fact, that
discretion was, as we know, exercised very rarely. And it would
have been an opportunity, had the Congress wanted to talk with
the folks who are involved in applying that law and seeing how
it works, to understand that this is not a law that is out of
sync with other states, and it is working.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much. And the reason that it
matters is because now the gentleman from Florida is trying to
become a Governor, and chances are maybe D.C., once they get
statehood, could have had a future Governor that had a second
chance. But since they do not want other people to have chances
that they have been given, they want to just pretend like they
are bigger and better and badder than.
So, I will move on because I am frustrated that we are
having this hearing when we know that this Administration
cannot take care of their own business. As we know, they
recently illegally bombed yet another Venezuelan boat, and we
may be headed for a war.
We know that this particular President has decided that he
wants to shake down people as relates to the First Amendment
because he has filed not one lawsuit, not two lawsuits, but he
has filed numerous lawsuits. He filed a lawsuit against The New
York Times. He filed one against The Wall Street Journal,
against CBS, against ABC, against the Des Moines Register. He
is doing all of this because he wants to quash any speech that
is not appreciative or lauding him, which is pretty much
anything that is factual.
So, let us talk a few facts about these January 6 felons
that should still be incarcerated because they went through the
process, but because they were doing things on his behalf, of
course he wanted to let them go. So they released more than
1,000 people who participated in the insurrection on this
government, many of whom who have previous criminal records
like Mr. Theodore Mendenforth, who was convicted of predatory
criminal sexual assault of a child; or Mr. Peter Swartz, who
had 38 prior convictions, including one where he beat his wife
by repeatedly punching and biting her. Trump also pardoned Mr.
David Daniel, who was convicted of production and possession of
child pornography. Trump also pardoned Mr. Daniel Ball, who
``threw an explosive device that detonated upon at least 25
officers during the Capitol riot.'' He also had a record for
``domestic violence by strangulation.''
I am not done. Trump also pardoned Mr. Andrew Taake, who
sent nudes to an undercover law enforcement officer who was
posing as a 15-year-old girl. Mr. Casey Hopkins also received a
pardon from Trump, and Mr. Hopkins was convicted of forcible
rape. According to court records, he ``had forcible intercourse
with the victim, choked her to the point of impairing her
vision, banged her head into a wall, and urinated into the
victim's mouth as he humiliated her.''
These are the people that he decided to release in the
streets of D.C. So, if anybody does need to clean up D.C., I
would agree it is this man because he is the one that is
causing half the crime that we have. Not only is he
participating in the crime, but we know that he instigated the
insurrection.
And if I did say that I had one issue with the Biden-Harris
Administration, it is the fact that they did not move forward
and make sure that this man was put where he should have been
put because the last time I checked, as a criminal defense
attorney--and, Mr. Attorney General, you may have a different
experience--but I never had a defendant that had 34 convictions
for felonies and did not spend one day in jail, never in my
life.
And the last time I checked, the party of law and order is
the only one that decided that they would be out of order and
decided to nominate someone who was not only indicted but was
actually convicted of multiple felonies. That has never
happened in this country, and it is a shame that we are dealing
with it now, and now he wants to tell you all how to do your
jobs.
Chairman Comer. I thought you were going to say when you
had one problem with the Bidens, I thought it was going to be
all the pardons, all the pardons that the autopen pardoned.
Ms. Crockett. No, it is on the fact that they did not----
Chairman Comer. Okay. All right. Okay.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Gill from Texas.
Mr. Gill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. And I would also like to thank the
witnesses for taking the time to be here today. I know you all
are busy, so I really appreciate it.
Mayor Bowser, thank you to you especially----
Ms. Bowser. Thank you.
Mr. Gill [continuing]. For coming here. You have been Mayor
for about ten years, right?
Ms. Bowser. Yes.
Mr. Gill. Okay. And during that time, would you describe
D.C. as a safe city?
Ms. Bowser. Yes.
Mr. Gill. You would?
Ms. Bowser. Listen, Mr. Gill, just--and it was brought up
earlier by the Congresswoman from Detroit.
Mr. Gill. The murder rate in Washington, D.C., is the
fourth highest of any city in the country.
Ms. Bowser. I have, I have heard----
Mr. Gill. Would you describe that as a safe city?
Ms. Bowser. I have heard every statistic and factoid, and
they are all different, about where our city----
Mr. Gill. Are you disputing that----
Ms. Bowser. No.
Mr. Gill [continuing]. Washington, D.C., has the fourth
highest murder rate in the country?
Ms. Bowser. I am not familiar with that statistic.
Mr. Gill. You are not familiar----
Ms. Bowser. What I know, Mr. Gill.
Mr. Gill [continuing]. With that statistic? This is your
city.
Ms. Bowser. Mr. Gill?
Mr. Gill. Respectfully----
Ms. Bowser. Excuse me.
Mr. Gill [continuing]. This is your city.
Ms. Bowser. What I, respectfully, I know that we have
driven our murder rate down over----
Mr. Gill. What was the homicide rate in 2014 before you
were----
Ms. Bowser. I do not----
Mr. Gill [continuing]. Elected?
Ms. Bowser. I do not know.
Mr. Gill. Do you know how much the homicide rate has
changed during your tenure as Mayor?
Ms. Bowser. I do.
Mr. Gill. How much?
Ms. Bowser. It has gone up----
Mr. Gill. It has gone up----
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. And it is going down.
Mr. Gill [continuing]. By about 70 percent. It has gone up
by about 70 percent----
Ms. Bowser. I do not think that is correct.
Mr. Gill [continuing]. From 2014 to 2024.
Ms. Bowser. I do not think that is correct.
Mr. Gill. Those are from the Metropolitan Police
Department. That is correct.
Mr. Higgins. I do not think that number is correct.
Mr. Gill. You should know the crime statistics----
Ms. Bowser. Yes, and I do.
Mr. Gill [continuing]. For your own city, especially----
Ms. Bowser. I do know my crime statistics.
Mr. Gill [continuing]. Whenever it is this dangerous. Do
you know how carjackings have trended during your time in
office?
Ms. Bowser. I know that they have gone down.
Mr. Gill. They are up over 500 percent from 2014 to 2024.
That is not a safe city. I do not think any person would call
that a safe city.
We will move on. You agree that defunding the police makes
our communities less safe, don't you?
Ms. Bowser. This is what I want to say. People----
Mr. Gill. It is a straightforward question.
Ms. Bowser. People, yes.
Mr. Gill. You are not going to filibuster.
Ms. Bowser. Well, this is my----
Mr. Gill. Do you think----
Ms. Bowser. This is my answer.
Mr. Gill [continuing]. That defunding the police makes our
communities----
Ms. Bowser. This is my answer.
Mr. Gill [continuing]. Less safe?
Ms. Bowser. What I know is that people have moved here.
People have sent their kids here. People have started
businesses here. We have record----
Mr. Gill. Does defunding----
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. Visitation----
Mr. Gill [continuing]. The police make our communities----
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. And so those are----
Mr. Gill [continuing]. More or less safe?
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. The indications----
Mr. Gill. Does defunding the police----
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. Of a city
Mr. Gill [continuing]. Make our communities more or less
safe?
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. Where people want to live, work,
and visit.
Mr. Gill. You will not even back your own police department
right now.
Ms. Bowser. You, you----
Mr. Gill. I am asking you, does defunding the police make
our communities more or less safe, and you will not give me a
straight answer.
Ms. Bowser. I have already answered that today.
Mr. Gill. Then why don't you tell me again? Do you think
that defunding the police makes our communities more or less
safe?
Ms. Bowser. I have never defunded the police, nor would I.
Mr. Gill. So, you think it makes our communities less safe.
Is that correct?
Ms. Bowser. I just told you. I have never defunded the
police----
Mr. Gill. I understand that.
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. And I never would.
Mr. Gill. You may not have defunded the police, and that is
a good thing, but you did provide a $125,000 grant to an
organization lobbying to defund the police. Are you aware of
that?
Ms. Bowser. I do not--what is that that you just raised?
Mr. Gill. It is an organization called HIPS that you
provided just this year, Fiscal Year 2025, a $125,000 grant to.
Ms. Bowser. I think we----
Mr. Gill. This is them lobbying----
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. Funded them to do----
Mr. Gill [continuing]. To defund the police.
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. Public health work.
Mr. Gill. ``It's time we shifted to a society free of
police and systems of incarceration.''
Ms. Bowser. We fund them for public health work.
Mr. Gill. For public health?
Ms. Bowser. Yes.
Mr. Gill. Does this make our communities more healthful----
Ms. Bowser. We fund----
Mr. Gill [continuing]. By defunding our police?
Ms. Bowser. We fund them for public health.
Mr. Gill. Do you think defunding our police and lobbying to
defund our police and undermine local law enforcement----
Ms. Bowser. I have answered that question.
Mr. Gill [continuing]. Makes our communities more safe----
Ms. Bowser. I have answered that question.
Mr. Gill [continuing]. Or healthful? Do you think that
providing tax dollars to an organization who wants to defund
our police is good for the residents of Washington, D.C.?
Ms. Bowser. We would not fund them for that purpose. We
would fund them----
Mr. Gill. But you funded them.
Ms. Bowser. We----
Mr. Gill. And you chose to give them money. You gave them
hardworking tax dollars to an organization that wants to defund
the police.
Ms. Bowser. We fund them for public health.
Mr. Gill. Do you think that giving free housing to illegal
aliens is an appropriate use of tax dollars?
Ms. Bowser. We think if it keeps people off the streets,
then we have to keep people off the streets.
Mr. Gill. You agree with giving your residents' tax dollars
and using them to give subsidized housing for illegal aliens?
Ms. Bowser. But Mr. Gill, we also did not agree with the
Governor of Texas or Arizona busing people, tricking them----
Mr. Gill. So, you----
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. To come to our city.
Mr. Gill. And it is not----
Ms. Bowser. We did not agree with that either.
Mr. Gill [continuing]. Surprising to me because you are
also funding NGO's that support free housing for illegal
aliens.
Ms. Bowser. And I hope you would agree----
Mr. Gill. And they are lobbying for that.
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. That other Governors----
Mr. Gill. You are using tax dollars to provide----
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. Should not send people----
Mr. Gill [continuing]. To provide----
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. On buses----
Mr. Gill [continuing]. NGO's that are lobbying----
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. That do not have any housing to
our city.
Mr. Gill [continuing]. To get free housing for illegal
aliens in your city. That makes your city less safe.
I want to move on. In May 2024, and this was referenced
earlier, there were some major pro-Palestinian protests and
sit-ins at George Washington University. This was during final
exam season. They were terrorizing Jewish students. They were
doing it for weeks. It was a major problem. The police were
called in, and you stopped them from doing their job.
Ms. Bowser. I do not----
Mr. Gill. Why is that?
Ms. Bowser. I did not stop the police from doing anything.
Mr. Gill. It is illegal for them to block a roadway. We
have got the law right here. It is unlawful for a person alone
or in concert with others to obstruct or incommode any street
avenue. That is exactly what they were doing. And you refused
to allow police to clear them out. Why is that?
Ms. Bowser. That is incorrect.
Mr. Gill. Why would you stop--clear the record then.
Ms. Bowser. I did not, I never stopped the police.
Mr. Gill. You did not stop them?
Ms. Bowser. No, I did not.
Mr. Gill. You did not stop them. Would you like to explain
what happened, why police never cleared out this roadway?
Ms. Bowser. Police did clear roadways.
Mr. Gill. They were there for weeks.
Ms. Bowser. Police cleared roadways.
Mr. Gill. They were there for weeks----
Ms. Bowser. Actually, they were----
Mr. Gill [continuing]. Terrorizing Jewish students.
Ms. Bowser. They were probably on----
Mr. Gill. And this is in your city.
Ms. Bowser [continuing]. Private property, not on the
roadway.
Mr. Gill. No, they were on public roadways.
Ms. Bowser. No, they were not.
Mr. Gill. Terrorizing Jewish students.
Ms. Bowser. No, they were not.
Mr. Gill. And you allowed it to happen.
Ms. Bowser. No, they were not.
Mr. Gill. I yield my time back.
Ms. Bowser. No, they were not.
Chairman Comer. The gentleman's time has expired.
All right. I am going to recognize the Ranking Member for
some unanimous consent requests.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I request unanimous
consent to enter into the record this August 19, 2025, article
from the American Prospect titled, ``The GOP states with guards
deployed to D.C. have urban murder rates way higher than
D.C.'s.''
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Crockett. I would also ask unanimous consent to enter
into the record this February 28, 2024, study from Third Way
titled, ``The 21st century red state murder crisis,'' which
lays out the decades-long problem with high murder rates in red
states and undermines the Republican myth that crime is their
strong point.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Crockett. And my final one is from Newsweek, but I do
not know the date right now. But this goes to what the
gentleman was just talking about when he said that D.C. has the
fifth highest homicide rate in the country. According to
Freedom for All Americans' 2024 data, D.C. is not on this list
at all. It starts with St. Louis and number ten is Chicago.
Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Comer. So, in closing, I want to thank our
witnesses for being here today. I know it was a very long
hearing, but this is an issue that America is watching. This is
America's city. This is the capital city. We want it to be
safe. Many of us spend at least, at least, half our waking
hours here in Washington, D.C. So, even though it is not our
official residence, we spend a lot of time here. Many of us
spend more time here than in certain parts of our district.
So, I want to yield to the Ranking Member, Ms. Crockett,
for a brief closing statement.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to my
colleagues for their questions and to our witnesses, Mayor
Bowser, Chairman Mendelson, Attorney General Schwalb, and Mr.
Jackson, for your service and for your testimony here today. I
appreciate all of your voices and your leadership to fight for
D.C. and its rights. You debunked a lot of misinformation
today.
Washington, D.C., is a great American city which deserves
to govern itself like any community in our country. If Donald
Trump wants to run D.C., he should resign as President--I am
here for it--and run for Mayor. Congress should not waste time
undermining this city's elected leaders. We will continue to
work with you all to support real public safety through smart
policies that support communities and hold criminals
accountable. We will work with you to tackle gun violence and
to protect the rights of every American.
Our Committee will not ignore the real crime at 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue. We need to stand up for free speech and
against corruption and weaponization. Chairman Comer, I
appreciate your commitment to work with us to hear from FCC
Chair Brendan Carr, which I think is the most alarming news of
this last week. I hope both sides of our Committee are opposed
to the President of the United States picking and choosing
late-night TV hosts. It is ridiculous and dangerous.
I would like to thank our witnesses once again for your
testimony today, and thank you for your service. I look forward
to working with you throughout my time on this Committee.
Chairman Comer. Thank you.
And let me say, D.C. crime reached new levels over the last
several years, President Trump finally tackling the crime
crisis with the deployment of Federal law enforcement. We are
thankful to President Trump for wanting to tackle the crime
crisis in this country. That was an issue in the Presidential
election, and it was an issue, which every poll shows, was
important to voters all across America, especially urban and
suburban voters. So, we commend him for sending troops into the
cities to support what local law enforcement we have.
Mayor Bowser, I appreciate you and your leadership in the
city. I know you are in a very difficult position as Mayor. We
believe that a lot of the problems stem from a lack of
accountability where our law enforcement's hands are tied in
Washington, D.C., as well as our juvenile justice rules and
laws and system is not where it should be to hold the most
vicious criminals accountable, regardless of their age. And I
think you are doing, you know, a good job in a tough position.
We disagree with a lot that the Council has done. We would love
for the Attorney General to be more aggressive.
Hopefully, the legislative agenda that the President
supports that we have passed out of this Committee, hopefully
it will become law, and we can see if those new laws help hold
people accountable and lower the crime rate in Washington,
D.C., which is what the goal of this Committee is. It has
nothing to do with race. This has nothing to do with
discrimination. This has nothing to do with picking on
Washington, D.C. This is our home too, and we want to make
Washington, D.C., safe. We have employees here, and we have a
whole lot of constituents that come here every day, and we want
to make this city safe.
And I think we can work together, and I look forward to
working with the Council, Chairman Mendelson, with the Mayor,
with the Attorney General, and with everyone, all the
stakeholders in Washington, D.C. In the same collaborative way
that we were able to bring the Washington Commanders back to
Washington, D.C., in the same way we passed the SHOW UP Act,
which I think has been part of the economic development woes in
the city.
Remember, under President Biden, he extended the work-from-
home agreement or whatever they had with the Federal employees.
And, you know, you have government agencies that for years did
not have employees going into those offices. That affected
restaurants. That affected food vendors. That affected a lot of
the local economy. And we have passed a bill in here, the SHOW
UP Act, to try to get those Federal employees to come back to
Washington, D.C., to work like the rest of us have to do.
So, I think we have demonstrated that we have worked
together in the past to do things to help Washington, D.C., and
I hope we can do that in the future because, again, our goal is
to make this city safe for everyone.
So, with that, and without objection, all Members have five
legislative days within which to submit materials and
additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be
forwarded to the witnesses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:32 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[all]