[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 27 (Thursday, February 9, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H784-H794]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    DISAPPROVING THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL IN 
            APPROVING THE REVISED CRIMINAL CODE ACT OF 2022

  Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 97, I call up 
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 26) disapproving the action of the 
District of Columbia Council in approving the Revised Criminal Code Act 
of 2022, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.

[[Page H785]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Carl). Pursuant to House Resolution 97, 
the joint resolution is considered read.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 26

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     Congress disapproves of the action of the District of 
     Columbia Council described as follows: The Revised Criminal 
     Code Act of 2022 (D.C. Act 24-789), enacted by the Council of 
     the District of Columbia on January 17, 2023, and transmitted 
     to Congress pursuant to section 602(c)(1) of the District of 
     Columbia Home Rule Act on January 27, 2023.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debated for 1 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability or their 
respective designees.
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).

                              {time}  0915


                             General Leave

  Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on the measure under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of Representative Clyde's H.J. 
Res. 26, a resolution disapproving the District of Columbia's Revised 
Criminal Code Act of 2022.
  There is a crime crisis in America's Capital City. According to the 
D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, carjackings in the District have 
increased by 90 percent compared to this time last year. Total property 
crime is up 31 percent, and homicides are up 29 percent. In fact, D.C. 
is currently on track to have the most homicides since 1995.
  But the radical D.C. Council has chosen to prioritize legislation 
that will turn this crime crisis into a catastrophe. The D.C. Council's 
progressive soft-on-crime legislation eliminates almost all the 
mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for violent crimes, and it 
drastically reduces the maximum penalties allowable to the courts. 
These changes further embolden criminals to run rampant throughout the 
District of Columbia.
  The act also grants the right to a jury trial for most misdemeanor 
offenses. The D.C. court system is already overloaded. This change will 
burden the D.C. court system even more, reducing the resources devoted 
to hearing cases for serious felony offenses.
  The D.C. Council's legislation is eroding an individual's right to a 
fair and speedy trial granted them through our Constitution.
  All Americans should feel safe in their Capital City, but they don't 
because of D.C. Democrats' leniency toward criminals at the expense of 
Americans' safety.
  Ensuring public safety and addressing crime is a cornerstone of the 
House Republicans' policy agenda. In November of last year, Americans 
voted for a new majority in the House--a new majority that will address 
crime head-on to ensure a nation that is safe.
  This D.C. Council legislation is a brazen rejection of law and order. 
Ignoring the high rates of criminality in the District and doubling 
down on leniency for society's violent criminals is a dereliction of 
duty. This terrible policy will impact anyone who sets foot in the 
District of Columbia, including residents, the commuting workforce, 
Federal Government officials, foreign dignitaries, and Americans 
visiting their Nation's Capital.
  If the D.C. Council wants to continue to skirt its responsibility to 
the people, then they will have to answer to this Congress.
  It should be noted that we in Congress are not alone. The D.C. Police 
Union, representing 3,500 members, and the National Fraternal Order of 
Police are strongly in favor of H.J. Res. 26 stating in a recent letter 
to Congress that the D.C. act ``will embolden criminals, dramatically 
increase crime and violence, and render police officers in the District 
of Columbia virtually powerless to adequately police the city and keep 
its residents and visitors safe.''
  This resolution is also endorsed by the National Association of 
Police Organizations representing over 241,000 law enforcement 
officials across America and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
Association.
  Additionally, on January 4, Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser 
took the extraordinary step of vetoing this legislation, calling the 
proposals controversial and stating that the act does not make the 
District of Columbia safer.
  Mayor Bowser's bold executive veto sent a strong message that the 
policy proposals of this bill are simply unworkable and unsafe for the 
District. There may not be much Mayor Bowser and I have agreed on in 
the past, but today we are on the same page.
  Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting Mr. 
Clyde's resolution disapproving of the D.C. Revised Criminal Code Act 
of 2022. We must ensure these terrible criminal code reforms are not 
put into place.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 26, the 
second episode in the new miniseries where the House majority asks the 
United States Congress to act as a super city council of 535 members to 
make decisions for the people of Washington, D.C., which is a real city 
with a real city council and Mayor and which some of my colleagues 
apparently have never visited or had any real interaction with.
  The people in Washington, D.C., want to make their decisions about 
democratic self-government for themselves. They don't want the 
Representatives of other Americans to come and make decisions for them.
  President Biden was here this week for his great State of the Union 
Address, and, Mr. Speaker, when you could hear him over the heckling, 
he talked about the great progress we are making as a nation 
economically with 12 million new jobs.
  In terms of support for Americans in their healthcare with the 
dramatic reduction in healthcare prescription drug costs, we have cut 
to $35 a month what people have to spend on their insulin shots if they 
have diabetes.
  We just passed a record investment in climate preparedness to deal 
with the extreme climate emergency and all of the extreme weather 
events that people in the United States are experiencing across the 
country.
  That is a national agenda. That is a real national agenda.
  Now, my friends across the aisle want to spend this week instead 
superintending and reviewing the bills that are being passed by the 
D.C. Council for 713,000 American citizens who live in Washington, D.C.

  Yesterday, it was about voting rights. Today, it is about criminal 
justice reform. I am sure down the road, just as in the past, it is 
going to be their gun safety laws, and it is going to be their laws 
allowing for Medicaid funded abortions for poor women. Then they will 
go after their LGBTQ laws and so on. There will be a parade of attacks 
on local democratic self-government in Washington, D.C.
  Now, I believe that the people of Washington should be treated like 
all other American citizens. Right now what they have asked for is 
admission to the Union as a State.
  Now, most of the Members of this body represent States that were 
admitted after the original 13. Thirty-seven States came in afterwards 
with Congress' exercise of its Article IV powers to admit new States. 
That was very much the design of the Constitution and the Founders' 
plan. Go back and read some Thomas Jefferson about that.
  We were not set up as a country where certain people would make 
decisions for other people but people, instead, would be able to govern 
themselves. In fact, the basis of our attack on British rule over 
America was our rejecting the idea of virtual representation: that some 
people could make decisions for other people. No. The whole premise of 
American democracy is that people make decisions for themselves.

[[Page H786]]

  So the 713,000 taxpaying, draftable citizens of Washington, D.C.--
whose population has participated in every war America has ever fought 
from the point of the American Revolution to the Civil War and all the 
way up through the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq--those people 
are asking for admission to the Union.
  This House of Representatives in the 117th and the 116th Congresses 
voted to give it to them. It didn't quite make it through the Senate, 
which is always slower on these things, but that is the trajectory that 
the people of D.C. are on.
  Instead of trying to join President Biden and all of the great 
national economic progress, infrastructure progress, and healthcare 
progress we are making, the House majority decides instead to usurp the 
role of the D.C. Council and to begin to micromanage their government 
and finger paint all over their laws. That is what they are doing 
today.
  Now, we don't have time to compare the laws of D.C. with the laws of 
each of the other States, but I just want my colleagues to be on notice 
that I have got the laws of the other States, and I can do those direct 
head-to-head comparisons.
  I don't think we should go down this road. I don't think it is a 
healthy thing for us to be doing as a Congress because we should be 
respecting the democratic self-government rights of the people of 
Washington, D.C.
  Nobody is more interested in public safety in Washington than the 
people of Washington.
  Nobody is more interested in the processes of democratic self-
government in Washington than the people of Washington.
  Nobody is more interested in their healthcare policies and in their 
housing policies than them.
  I invite any of my colleagues who have actually been to a meeting of 
the D.C. Council or their local advisory neighborhood commission to 
rise and tell us about the experience.
  But if they haven't, then they should leave democratic self-
government and local self-government of Washington to the people of 
Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, it appears my Democratic colleagues would 
rather disregard their statutory responsibility in the Home Rule Act. 
How convenient to pick and choose when to do their duty.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Clyde) who is the sponsor of the resolution.
  Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman 
Comer, for yielding.
  It is no secret that crime has beleaguered Washington, D.C., for 
years. Yet, in the midst of rising crime rates in D.C., our Nation's 
Capital is now on track to become even more dangerous.
  The D.C. Council is advancing a severely misguided bill, the Revised 
Criminal Code Act, to eliminate minimum sentences and reduce maximum 
penalties for numerous violent criminal offenses.
  This legislation isn't just reckless. It is radical. Washington's own 
Democratic Mayor Bowser vetoed the legislation telling the council: 
``This bill does not make us safer.''
  Well, for once, I agree with the Mayor because eliminating mandatory 
minimum sentences for all crimes except first-degree murder, 
eliminating life sentences, and reducing maximum penalties for violent 
crimes including burglary, carjacking, and robberies will undoubtedly 
embolden criminals and threaten the safety of both residents and 
visitors here in Washington, D.C.
  But ultimately, the D.C. Council ignored Mayor Bowser's valid 
concerns and overrode her veto.
  Many have asked why, as a Congressman from northeast Georgia, I am 
leading the effort to block the D.C. Council's radical rewrite of 
Washington's criminal code.
  It is because I care, and I would expect and hope that everyone here 
in this Chamber would care, too. Congress has the responsibility and 
the authority to take this action.
  Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution grants Congress 
the authority to ``exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases 
whatsoever, over such District.''
  But we don't just have a constitutional obligation to stop this soft-
on-crime bill from becoming law, we also have a moral obligation to 
protect America's safety and security in our Nation's Capital City.
  Just 2 days ago in his State of the Union Address, President Biden 
said right here in this very Chamber: ``We have an obligation to make 
sure all our people are safe,'' and adding: ``Public safety depends on 
public trust.''
  For once, I agree with the President because all Americans deserve to 
visit our Nation's Capital without facing fear or violence, and all 
Americans should be able to trust public officials to implement 
policies that protect their safety and well-being.
  Yet, under the D.C. Council's radical crime bill, residents, small 
businesses, constituents, and our own staff here on Capitol Hill will 
inevitably encounter additional danger and violence.
  As the President delivered his State of the Union Address on Tuesday 
night, there was a shooting blocks away in the Navy Yard and a stabbing 
over in Georgetown.
  Earlier this week on Capitol Hill, a Capitol Hill reporter's wheels 
were stolen right off his car. The same crime happened to one of my 
Democrat colleagues, Congresswoman Barragan, last month.
  Just last week at the Potomac Avenue Metro station, a crazed criminal 
shot and killed a 64-year-old Metro mechanic, Robert Cunningham, who 
heroically attempted to stop the violent criminal from shooting a woman 
nearby.
  Clearly, crime after crime is on the rise here in D.C., yet the D.C. 
Council's bill will only make matters worse.
  Combating crime is not a conservative or a liberal objective. It is 
not Republican or Democrat. It is simply a commonsense one. In fact, it 
has been my honor to work with a local Democrat, Denise Krepp, who 
formerly served as an Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner here in D.C. 
For years Ms. Krepp pleaded with Democrats to be tough on crime for the 
sake of the residents she served, yet she was routinely ignored.
  In a letter sent to this very body in December--which I shall include 
in the Record--she urged Congress to introduce a resolution of 
disapproval to block the D.C. Council's Revised Criminal Code Act. It 
is an effort I am honored to lead and an effort that I am proud the 
House will pass today.
  Because we must send a clear message to the Senate, to the White 
House, and to the American people that the people's House rejects soft-
on-crime policies that jeopardize Americans' safety and security, I 
urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yea'' on my 
commonsense resolution, H.J. Res. 26.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the December 12, 2022, letter 
from Ms. Krepp.
                                                December 12, 2022.
     Re. B24-0416--Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022.

     Rep. Pelosi,
     Washington, DC.
     Rep. McCarthy,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Schumer,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator McConnell,
     Washington, DC.
       Representative Pelosi, Representative McCarthy, Senator 
     Schumer, and Senator McConnell: My name is K. Denise Rucker 
     Krepp and I'm an Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner in 
     Washington, D.C. I'm writing to you today to ask that you 
     enact into law a joint resolution disapproving the Revised 
     Criminal Code Act of 2022 (RCCA). The bill hurts victims of 
     violent crime.
       Currently, convicted rapists must serve their full prison 
     sentence. The RCCA creates a new right to petition for early 
     release from prison. The D.C. Councilmembers who drafted this 
     provision call it proportionate, balancing the interests of 
     victims and those who commit the crimes.
       Rape is an irreversible crime. Victims don't get to rewind 
     the clock and as a locally elected D.C. official I 
     respectfully ask that you disapprove the bill, stopping it 
     from becoming law.
       Additionally, I respectfully ask that you conduct oversight 
     over prosecutions of violent crimes occurring in Washington, 
     D.C. At a March 2022 meeting, the U.S. Attorney for the 
     District of Columbia told me that he didn't know what crimes 
     his office prosecutes each year and that it is unreasonable 
     for me to expect him to know this information.
       I've been a locally unpaid, no staff elected official in 
     Washington, D.C. for eight years. Over this period of time, 
     I've tracked the murders, armed carjackings, assaults, 
     robberies, stabbings, shootings, and rape that have occurred 
     in my single member district. The U.S. Attorney for the 
     District of Columbia has staff and resources, and it's 
     reasonable for him to know what crimes his office

[[Page H787]]

     prosecutes. Please ask him to do so and to share this 
     information with you and DC residents.
       Thank you.
                                           K. Denise Rucker Krepp,
                                             ANC6B10 Commissioner.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia says he is in 
favor of the resolution because he cares about Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), someone else who cares about 
Washington, D.C.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this profoundly 
undemocratic, paternalistic resolution.
  The House of Representatives, in which nearly 700,000 District of 
Columbia residents have no voting representation, is attempting to 
nullify legislation enacted by D.C.'s local legislature, whose members 
are elected by D.C. residents.
  By scheduling this vote, I can only conclude that the Republican 
leadership believes that D.C. residents, a majority of whom are Black 
and Brown, are either unworthy or incapable of governing themselves.
  The dictionary defines democracy as ``a government in which the 
supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or 
indirectly through a system of representation usually involving 
periodically held free elections.'' D.C.'s lack of voting 
representation in Congress and Congress' plenary authority over D.C. 
are the antithesis of democracy.
  I remind House Republicans that they once professed support for local 
control of local affairs. Their fiscal year 2016 budget said this: 
``America is a diverse Nation. Our cities, States, and local 
communities are best equipped and naturally inclined to develop 
solutions that will serve their populations, but far too often local 
leaders are limited by numerous Federal dictates.''
  The legislative history and merits of the legislation enacted by the 
District of Columbia that are the subject of this resolution are 
irrelevant to the consideration of this resolution, since there is 
never justification for Congress nullifying legislation enacted by the 
District, but I would like to set the record straight.
  The Revised Criminal Code Act comprehensively revises D.C.'s criminal 
code, which has not been done since it was created in 1901. Everyone in 
the D.C. legal system agrees that such a revision is long overdue. The 
bill is the product of over a decade of work by D.C. to create a 
modern, comprehensive, systematic criminal code. A majority of States, 
both red and blue, have adopted such a code.
  In 2016, D.C. enacted legislation establishing an independent agency, 
the Criminal Code Reform Commission, to recommend a new criminal code. 
The Commission, which consisted of nonpartisan experts, drafted the 
Revised Criminal Code Act over nearly 5 years in a fully public 
process. The voting members of the Commission's advisory group, 
including the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, unanimously 
approved transmitting the bill to the D.C. Council and the Mayor.
  The D.C. Council held three hearings on this bill. The council, as 
required by Congress, passed the bill on two separate occasions by 
votes of 12-0 and 13-0. The Mayor vetoed the bill. The council overrode 
the veto by a vote of 12-1. The provisions of the bill do not take 
effect until October 1, 2025, at the earliest.
  I say to every Member of Congress: Keep your hands off D.C.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no.''
  Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McCarthy), the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
the work he is doing.
  Mr. Speaker, a healthy Republic has two basic duties: Guarantee free 
and fair elections, and protect life, liberty, and property from 
violence.
  Yet, two new acts from the Washington, D.C. Council will dilute the 
vote of American citizens and endanger city residents and visitors. 
Today, the House of Representatives will vote to stop these acts from 
taking effect. I urge all my colleagues to support these resolutions.
  Let me start with the voting resolution. Last year, Washington, D.C., 
passed a law that would give the vote to illegal immigrants. The law 
makes no exceptions for foreign diplomats or agents who have interests 
that are the opposite of ours. Under this bill, Russian diplomats would 
get a vote and Chinese diplomats could get a vote.
  The CCP is already infiltrating our culture, our farmland, and our 
skies, but the D.C. Council will let them infiltrate our ballot boxes. 
Just today, we had a classified briefing for all the Members of 
Congress talking about what the CCP just did last week over the skies 
of America, and now the D.C. Council wants to open up the ballot boxes 
for the CCP.

  Even The Washington Post opposes this idea because, as they wrote, it 
would allow an ``estimated 50,000 noncitizen residents'' who live in 
Washington, D.C. to cast ballots in local elections. These elections, 
of course, can set the laws that cover the White House, Congress, and 
even government agencies. If we set this precedent, other cities will 
follow, and faith in our elections will plummet.
  Now, let me address the crime resolution. To date, early in this 
year, early in February, there now have been 65 carjackings in 
Washington, D.C., just this year alone. That is more than one every 
single day.
  Two weeks ago, two 18-year-old carjackers crashed into two Capitol 
Police vehicles just yards from this floor. The suspects were quickly 
arrested by the Capitol Police. Tragically, carjackings, shootings, and 
other crimes have become a reality of everyday life in our Nation's 
Capital.
  In 2020, Washington, D.C., defunded the police. From that point on, 
the city government has done nothing but pass laws that have clearly 
made the city less safe. Today, many residents are worried about taking 
their kids to school or going to the grocery store.
  Rather than attempt to fix the problem, the D.C. Council wants to go 
even easier on criminals. Their dangerous new criminal code softens 
penalties for violent crimes like assault, carjacking, rape, and even 
most types of murder.
  If enacted into law, criminals would be treated like they are 
victims, and victims would be treated like they don't matter. Even 
liberals like The Washington Post Editorial Board and Mayor Bowser are 
against it. In fact, Mayor Bowser vetoed the new law last month. 
According to the Mayor, the law sends the wrong message to criminals 
and does not make us safer.
  By overriding the Mayor's veto, the D.C. Council advanced the 
interests of radical activists at the expense of those who are forced 
to suffer the consequences. This is not fair. It is not right, and it 
must stop.
  Under the Constitution, Congress, not the D.C. Council, has the final 
say over the laws governing the Nation's Capital. We have a 
responsibility to hold Washington, D.C., accountable and stop the new 
criminal code from taking effect.
  This is exactly what this resolution does, Mr. Speaker. It is about 
more than just numbers. This is about our neighbors who are 
traumatized, injured, and have to live in fear. It is about parents who 
worry about whether it is safe to let their children play outside. It 
is about our constituents and students on school trips who might choose 
to stay home rather than visit their government in person.
  That is why the men and women in blue support this resolution. The 
Fraternal Order of Police supports it; the D.C. Police Union supports 
it; the National Association of Police Organizations supports it; and 
the Federal Law Enforcement Officers' Association supports it.
  You would think the D.C. Council would listen to the concerns of cops 
on the beat. They didn't, but Congress will. We will always back the 
blue, and we will always work to make our communities safer.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have put some stuff on the floor, and I 
will answer it.
  The distinguished gentleman from Georgia invoked a couple of crimes 
in Washington, D.C., including one in the Metro. He didn't talk about 
the hundreds of crimes that were committed here at the Capitol, in 
Congress, in Washington, D.C., because he viewed

[[Page H788]]

the events of January 6 as akin to a ``normal tourist visit.''
  Now he dares to lecture the people of Washington, D.C., about keeping 
Washington, D.C., safe. He seeks to associate Washington, D.C., with 
crime. Indeed, he and his colleagues constantly try to link images of 
crime to what they call Democrat-controlled cities.
  I did some research last night just to clarify matters. The seven 
States with the highest murder rates in 2020 all were States that were 
majority for Donald Trump in the 2020 election. The murder rate in the 
States that voted for Trump was higher in aggregate than the murder 
rate in the States that voted for Biden in each year from 2000 to 2020. 
I invite the gentleman not to lecture the people of Washington, D.C., 
about crime rates because the murder rate is worse in the red States 
than it is in the blue States.
  Five of the ten cities with the highest murder rate through the first 
half of last year were in States that voted for Donald Trump in 2020. 
All those cities have higher murder rates than Washington, D.C. Among 
the top 10 is a city in the State represented by the sponsor of the 
disapproval resolution, Mr. Clyde.

  Now, the Speaker rose to talk about both yesterday's resolution and 
today's resolution. He also gave the people of Washington, D.C., a 
lecture about diluting the vote when he rejects their admission to the 
Union as a State.
  In other words, he is trying to squelch and nullify their statehood 
drive that would give them real political equality in the country, and 
then he says the people of Washington, D.C., are diluting the vote. 
Well, he is blockading the vote. He is preventing the vote for people 
in Washington, D.C.
  Then he joins the chorus denouncing crime in Washington, D.C., which 
is suddenly of concern to them. I had not heard them mention that 
before. Well, it turns out that Bakersfield, California, has one of the 
highest crime rates in America, recently described as one of the top 10 
deadliest cities in America for its size, and its crime rate is higher 
than that of Washington, D.C.
  However, we are going to take this opportunity to kick around the 
people of Washington, D.C. Why? Because they are vulnerable, because 
they don't have voting representation in the House, and they have no 
voting representation or voice in the U.S. Senate. That is a scandal 
from the standpoint of democracy.
  Instead of trying to solve that problem, my colleagues, instead, want 
to use the people of Washington, D.C., as a whipping post, as a pinata, 
something to kick around. I just think that that is outrageous, and it 
is wrong.
  On January 6, when we were attacked at the Capitol and in this 
Chamber, there were hundreds of residents of Washington, D.C., who work 
for the Capitol Police, who work for the Metropolitan Police 
Department, who work for other police forces who came here to defend 
us. They came to defend the Congress that they are excluded from. You 
talk about patriotism, that is patriotism.
  These people have a real grievance, a valid grievance, not an 
imaginary, fake, counterfeit grievance like a Presidential election 
which they still claim Donald Trump won, even though their arguments 
were rejected in more than 60 Federal and State courts.

                              {time}  0945

  Trump lost that election by more than 7 million votes, 306-232 in the 
electoral college. I am glad they are nodding over on that side of the 
aisle because these facts are indisputable, yet, still, they indulge 
the follies and the fantasies and the pathologies of Donald Trump.
  That is what they do instead. They try to kick around the people of 
Washington, D.C., who defended us as patriots on that day.
  There are veterans in Washington, D.C., and we will submit these for 
the Record, who have demanded their voting rights and demanded 
admission as a State. Yet, they dare to lecture the people of 
Washington, D.C., about what to do with their democratic rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I feel compelled to respond. These resolutions have been called 
paternalistic. However, the last time Congress passed a joint 
resolution of disapproval was all the way back in 1990, my senior year 
in high school--I am 50 years old, Mr. Speaker--over 30 years ago.
  Congress does not act upon D.C. legislation unless it is absolutely 
necessary, and that is what we are faced with today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Lawler).
  Mr. LAWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the joint resolution 
that would help protect the citizens of Washington, D.C., and prevent 
violent criminals from being let free to terrorize folks and reoffend.
  Even Mayor Bowser, by no means a conservative or moderate, was 
adamantly opposed to the Revised Criminal Code Act. She vetoed it. It 
is no wonder why she vetoed this measure. So far, year to date, 
according to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D.C., 
has seen a 90 percent increase in auto theft, a 143 percent increase in 
sex abuse, and a 29 percent increase in homicides. On the whole, year 
to date, property crime is up 31 percent and overall crime is up 23 
percent.
  That doesn't sound like a recipe for doing away with mandatory 
minimums, lowering maximum sentences, and increasing rehearings for 
violent criminals.
  In New York State, we have seen the impacts of these soft-on-crime 
policies. In New York City, total crimes were up 22 percent in 2022 
from 2021 and over 47 percent from 2020, the year that cashless bail 
took effect.
  It is alarming; it is startling; and it is a preview of what is to 
come in Washington, D.C., if we do not stop this radical measure that 
was passed from going into effect.
  Cashless bail in New York was the single stupidest policy that has 
ever been enacted anywhere. Forty percent of those who have been 
released on nonmonetary bail for felony offenses have been rearrested. 
Judges do not have judicial discretion.
  New York State is the only State in the country that does not have a 
dangerousness standard. There is nonenforcement of petty crimes in New 
York City. There has been elimination of the anticrime unit, which is 
primarily responsible for getting illegal guns off the streets. They 
have raised the age where 16- and 17-year-olds are tried in family 
court rather than criminal court, yet using guns in the commission of a 
crime, they are being released. Is it any wonder why gangs would use 
them?
  Unrepentant cop killers, child rapists, and murderers are being 
released by an out-of-control parole board. There is a radical defund 
the police movement. This has happened in New York City, and it will 
happen in Washington, D.C., if this law is allowed to go into effect.
  The greatest responsibility of any government is to ensure the safety 
and security of its citizenry. Cities like New York and now Washington, 
D.C., and Chicago are failing in their responsibility.
  We are putting our citizens and law enforcement at risk. It needs to 
stop. This law should not be allowed to go into effect, and Congress 
has an obligation--an obligation--to act.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about crime in D.C., so 
I think it is fair to ask: How do the Revised Criminal Code Act 
penalties compare to the penalties in the States, the States 
represented in this House? I will cite a few examples from Kentucky, 
Chairman Comer's home State.
  The Revised Criminal Code Act has a higher mandatory minimum penalty 
for murder one than Kentucky.
  The Revised Criminal Code Act has a higher maximum penalty for 
involuntary manslaughter and unarmed robbery than Kentucky.
  How about armed and unarmed carjacking? The Revised Criminal Code Act 
has specific armed and unarmed carjacking crimes. Kentucky does not.
  The Revised Criminal Code Act maximum penalty for armed carjacking is 
higher than for first degree robbery in Kentucky. The Revised Criminal 
Code Act maximum penalty for unarmed carjacking is higher than for 
unarmed robbery in Kentucky.

[[Page H789]]

  How about felony murder? The Revised Criminal Code Act has a maximum 
sentence of 20 years with a maximum of 30 years for aggravating 
factors. Kentucky abolished felony murder.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia has just made a very 
powerful point, which is that on a whole range of offenses under the 
newly revised D.C. act that they want to overthrow, the criminal law is 
tougher in Washington, D.C., than it is in the distinguished chairman's 
home State of Kentucky.
  On carjacking, on first degree murder, on involuntary manslaughter, 
the people of D.C. have chosen tougher penalties, but the gentlewoman 
didn't arrive to denounce Kentucky as soft on crime or weak on crime 
and say the whole United States Congress has to turn itself into a 
superlegislature for Kentucky and strike their laws down. That is up to 
the people of Kentucky. They don't even have a carjacking statute. You 
have to use armed robbery there, which gets you up to 20 years in 
prison. In the District of Columbia, they have a specific carjacking 
statute that could get you 24 years in prison.
  That is the beauty of the Federal system, which I thought our 
colleagues supported, the idea that people decide at the local level 
whether they want tougher laws, as in the District of Columbia, or 
weaker laws, as in Kentucky. That is up to the people of the States to 
go offense by offense.
  I am afraid that my friend and colleague, Ms. Norton, is taking them 
a bit too seriously because they are not really interested in 
scrutinizing the actual criminal justice policy. They just want to kick 
the people of Washington, D.C., around. They want to lord it over them.
  We have President Biden here this week inviting both parties to work 
together for a continued acceleration of this great economic rebound we 
are in with 12 million new jobs, with us finally addressing climate 
change, with us finally getting prescription drug benefits to the 
people of America. He invited us to participate in a bipartisan 
national renewal, and what does the majority come back with? They want 
535 Members of the United States Congress to act like a super-city 
council lording over the people of Washington, D.C.
  It is unjust and unfair to the people of Washington, and it is 
beneath our dignity as a democratic Congress to be acting in this way.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I am pretty sure we haven't had a carjacking 
in my congressional district in several years. If someone thought about 
carjacking a vehicle in my district, it probably wouldn't end well for 
them. I don't think this has anything to do with this important bill in 
a city that has been ravaged with crime and carjackings every day.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
D'Esposito).
  Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in staunch opposition 
to the disastrous new criminal justice reform act passed by the D.C. 
Council.
  If enacted, the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 would effectively 
prevent the local justice system from keeping criminals off of our 
streets, all while D.C. grapples with a crime wave.
  You see, sir, this is not a lecture. As a matter of fact, I spent a 
career proudly wearing the uniform. I have stood the line between good 
and evil. I have interrogated criminals. I have consoled victims.
  In Washington, D.C., from February 2022 to February 2023, homicides 
have increased 17 percent; motor vehicle theft is up 76 percent; total 
property crime is up 24 percent. Every crime has a victim. Every victim 
has a story.
  Instead of working to stop crime, the D.C. Council chooses to 
eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for all crimes, except first 
degree murder, as part of the RCCA.
  This misguided legislation also reduces maximum penalties for violent 
crimes such as burglaries, carjackings, and robberies.
  The D.C. Council is empowering criminals, empowering criminals at the 
expense of the public, which is why I stand in absolute opposition to 
their newest soft-on-crime plan.
  To say that we are targeting the people of D.C., using them as 
``pinatas,'' how do you think the victims feel? Sadly, this procriminal 
agenda has found its way into many other American cities and States, 
including my home State of New York.
  In fact, the D.C. law mirrors New York State's disastrous cashless 
bail laws implemented by New York State Democrats. Cashless bail allows 
criminals to commit crimes and be back out on the streets in record 
time to commit more crimes and wreak havoc on more victims.
  We have seen it recently in my own district, where illegal immigrants 
robbed a store, were released without bail, and failed to report to 
their court date afterward.
  This progressive playbook on justice reform endangers the public, 
treats criminals with kid gloves, and poses a serious risk to the 
future of American cities and, most importantly, our Nation's Capital.

  Instead of enabling criminals to escape punishment for their crimes, 
we should empower judges and juries to impose responsible penalties for 
crimes committed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from New York.
  Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Mr. Speaker, we owe it to the people of Washington, 
D.C., and the people of the United States of America who live in fear 
of crime to fight criminals instead of working to protect them.
  We must stop the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 from becoming law.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
If you google carjacking in Kentucky, what will come up is, just a few 
months ago, two people were carjacked in different incidents at 
gunpoint in Louisville, which I think is in the State of Kentucky. 
Since we are talking about State laws, that is what should be relevant. 
Carjacking is, obviously, a problem across the country.
  The conceit of the other side seems to be that they care more about 
crime and public safety in Washington, D.C., than people who live in 
Washington, D.C. We just got lectures from two different Members from 
New York about the terrible conditions in New York. Well, if that is 
what their concern is, then they should run for the New York State 
Legislature and change the laws that are involved if they can persuade 
their fellow citizens that they have it right. If they can't, then 
maybe they should reconsider what their agenda is.
  In any event, if you want to micromanage the laws of Washington, 
D.C., and rewrite this 275-page act that was passed to revise the 
criminal code, which they hadn't revised in a century, with the input 
of Federal and local judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and the 
D.C. Council, then move to Washington, D.C., and run for D.C. Council.

                              {time}  1000

  These resolutions of disapproval come to the House floor without the 
benefit of a single hearing in the Oversight Committee.
  They have not had a hearing where the Members of Congress could be 
heard on this, where we could have a single witness, where we could 
have a single fact introduced, much less have the members of the D.C. 
Council--who sent a letter petitioning for respect for democratic self-
government in D.C.--had the right to be heard, much less if the Mayor 
had the right to be heard.
  They keep invoking the name of the Mayor of the District of Columbia 
who said she does not want Congress to be overturning the laws of the 
District of Columbia, even if she opposes those laws.
  Well, that is a principled position in favor of democratic self-
government. I dare say, most of the Members of this body would say even 
if they disagreed with a law passed by their State legislature in their 
State and signed by the Governor that Congress should not selectively 
overturn that law. But that is precisely what they are proposing to do 
to the people of the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

[[Page H790]]

  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from more than 100 
groups led by D.C. Vote calling on Congress to keep its hands off of 
D.C.

                                                 February 7, 2023.
     Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer,
     Washington, DC.
     Minority Leader Mitch McConnell,
     Washington, DC.
     House Speaker Kevin McCarthy,
     Washington, DC.
     Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressional Leadership: 

  Congress Should Stay Out of the District of Columbia's Local Affairs

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

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to cite examples of increased 
maximum penalties in D.C. You can't call D.C. soft on crime.
  For example, nonconsensual sexual conduct, which is the most commonly 
charged sex event, current maximum, 6 months. New maximum, 2 years.
  Attempted murder, current maximum, 5 years. New maximum, 23.5 years.
  Attempted sexual assault, current maximum, 5 years. New maximum, 15 
years.
  Threats to do bodily harm, current maximum, 6 months. New maximum, 2 
years.
  Possession of a machine gun, sawed-off gun, or ghost gun, current 
maximum, 1 year. New maximum, 4 years.
  It increases the maximum penalties for misdemeanor and felony assault 
on a police officer.
  I would like to cite examples of new crimes. Negligent homicide, 
maximum penalty is 4 years. The current law does not criminalize 
negligently causing the death of another, except by operating a 
vehicle.
  Reckless endangerment with a firearm. The maximum penalty is 2 years 
for firing a gun in public, even if the gun is not aimed at anyone or 
any property.
  I urge the Members to look at how the D.C. Council has enhanced 
penalties, not reduced them, making this city safer for everyone.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if we were actually to pass this resolution of 
disapproval against Washington, D.C., at this point, I wonder what my 
colleagues think we do at that point.
  Sitting as the super council for the District of Columbia, would we 
rewrite the law?
  In other words, would we then conduct hearings on each of the 
offenses that the gentlewoman has just invoked?
  Are we going to have hearings about involuntary manslaughter and 
first degree murder and carjacking and so on in the District of 
Columbia?
  They don't even want to have a hearing on their disapproval 
resolution, much less do we want to have a hearing on each of these 
bills and take over the governance of the District of Columbia.
  Let's respect the Home Rule Act that was adopted in 1973. Home rule 
operates here just like it operates in all of our States, which is 
local matters are decided locally. Let's leave it at that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Kentucky, the 
chairman of the Oversight Committee, for yielding.
  I also thank Congressman Clyde for bringing H.J. Res. 26, the bill to 
address this serious problem of crime.
  You have been hearing this debate on the floor. I am sure people 
watching at

[[Page H791]]

home are watching in amazement that this is not a unanimous discussion, 
that we are not all standing up here on the House floor deploring the 
crime that is out of control in the District of Columbia.
  We have seen it in so many communities around America. You see it in 
so many big cities--pretty much all run by Democrats, I will point 
out--where crime is out of control after they have dropped penalties 
for criminals, where they have defunded the police, this massive shift 
against law enforcement, against keeping communities safe. You would 
think we would all be in agreement on that.
  The fact is that in D.C., sexual abuse is up 157 percent. You would 
think you would hear the other side joining us in speaking out against 
that, not trying to defend laws that make it easier to get criminals 
out of jail.
  Motor vehicle theft up 88 percent. Total property crime up 31 
percent. Homicides increased 22 percent.
  We see stories of carjackings every day, and what did the D.C. 
Council do?
  They passed a resolution to get rid of mandatory minimums on many 
violent crimes.
  This isn't some petty crime we are talking about. We are talking 
about violent crimes. Armed carjackings. The mandatory minimum used to 
be 15 years for an armed carjacking; dropped to zero. Not a day.
  You can hold somebody up at gunpoint and take their car from them, 
and you could literally walk out of jail the next day without serving a 
day in prison, and you wonder why crime is out of control. The D.C. 
Mayor vetoed the ordinance; the council overrode it.
  Now, you hear a lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
talking about why is Congress even doing this?
  Well, you know, Mr. Speaker, just the other day, we actually spent a 
day reading the entire United States Constitution on the House floor.
  Maybe my Democrat colleagues didn't listen to that discussion. Maybe 
they haven't read the United States Constitution in a long time, but I 
will break the copy out. It is easy to read.

  Article I, Section 8 talks about the District of Columbia. It says, 
``Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all 
cases whatsoever, over such District. . . .''
  Yes. Congress is given the exclusive right to legislate in all cases 
dealing with the District of Columbia.
  You can talk about debates that go on in statehouses. The District of 
Columbia is not a State for a lot of reasons.
  Our Founding Fathers actually wanted a Capitol of the United States 
that wasn't part of a State. There is a lot of debate about why that 
happened.
  In fact, this land that we are standing on right now used to be part 
of a State. The State is called Maryland. It is still there.
  Maryland gave land to the United States because our Nation decided we 
wanted the Capitol to be in a place that is not tied to the other 
States, that is just the home of the Nation's Capital.
  It gave Congress in the Constitution the authority to get involved in 
these kinds of issues.
  It doesn't happen often, but my God, if we can't come together with 
crime out of control, with people being killed, with criminals being 
let out the next day after violent crimes are committed, and mandatory 
minimums are dropped from 15 years to zero, if you hold a gun to 
somebody's head and carjack them, that is why we are coming together, 
to take a stand.
  Everybody can vote. If they are okay with letting the carjackers walk 
scot-free, they will have that opportunity.
  Don't count me in that number. I would say don't count the people 
that live in the District of Columbia, living in fear of crime. They 
don't want that crime.
  The millions of people that come as tourists to visit our Nation's 
Capital should not live in fear of that violent crime every day because 
criminals get to walk free.
  How is the governance determined?
  They allow people that are here illegally to vote in D.C.
  We have another bill that we are bringing up to say that people here 
illegally cannot vote in D.C. elections.
  It is bizarre, listening to the debate on the other side that wants 
to defend that ability for illegals. We went and verified. There is not 
even an exception for foreign nationals.
  So people that work at the Chinese Embassy, we saw how they respect 
our laws in the United States. They flew a spy balloon over most of the 
sensitive military bases of our Nation last week.
  Yet, people that work at the Chinese Embassy are Chinese citizens and 
can vote in D.C. elections. There is a piece of legislation that 
repeals that, as well.
  Obviously, there are some in this Chamber who want to defend the 
right for people here illegally, including people that work for the CCP 
that are Chinese nationals, that are Russian nationals, they want them 
to be able to vote in D.C. elections.
  Enough is enough. We are exercising our constitutional right to say 
no to this madness. Let's restore law and order. Let's stand up for law 
and order and the people of the District of Columbia and all the 
millions of people who come to visit this Nation's Capital who don't 
want to live in fear, who don't think that the carjackers should be 
able to walk scot-free if they pull out a gun and put it to somebody's 
head to take their car or to break into their house or to do so many 
other violent things that are causing fear through our communities.
  We can do something about this. We ought to do this. We ought to pass 
both of these pieces of legislation. I urge passage.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close, and I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  I want to correct just a few of the major distortions that we just 
heard from the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana.
  First of all, carjacking, as I understand it from this act, and I am 
willing to stand corrected, is not legal in the District of Columbia. 
On the contrary, it could be punished by up to 24 years.
  I think the gentleman from Louisiana misunderstood my colloquy with 
the chairman of the committee because it is in Kentucky where 
carjacking is not a statutory offense.
  If you were to charge the people who were committing carjackings 
recently in Louisville, you would have to charge them under armed 
robbery because there is not a carjacking statute.
  Washington, D.C., has one, and it has a penalty of up to 24 years, 
which is more than you could get in Kentucky for armed robbery.
  The second point is he said that crime was out of control in 
Washington, D.C. Well, the crime rate is higher in Bakersfield, 
California, which is represented by the Speaker of the U.S. House of 
Representatives.
  A major city, New Orleans, in the gentleman's home State, in this 
quote from FOX News ``New Orleans closes 2022 with sky-high homicide 
rate not seen in decades: `Horrific'.'' New Orleans was given the grim 
distinction of murder capital of the U.S. in September.
  But we don't need to have some kind of race to the bottom Olympics in 
terms of which State or which city has the worst crime rate.
  We should get together to deal with the problem of gun violence, 
which is why I invite our colleagues to join us and more than 90 
percent of the American people who support a universal violent criminal 
background check, but they oppose it.
  They are locked in the stranglehold of the NRA, and they won't back 
this, despite the fact that all the police unions they cited today 
about D.C. support a universal violent criminal background check.
  Why don't they do something about semiautomatic assault weapons on 
the streets of our cities and towns across America?
  They won't do it. No, they would rather use crime simply as a 
political club to try to take away other people's democratic rights.
  Mr. Speaker, it is scandalous, the way the majority purports to stand 
up for local self-government and home rule when they want to trample 
all of the democratic rights of the people of Washington, D.C.
  Let's not sit as a super city council of 535 Members doing the 
municipal minutiae of the people of Washington. Let them govern 
themselves.
  We should be on the pathway to statehood for them, but at the very 
least, respect their right to home rule. Nobody cares more about public 
safety in D.C. than the people of D.C.
  Nobody cares more about the condition of their communities than the

[[Page H792]]

people who live in them. That is a basic precept of democratic ideals.
  I hope my colleagues will respect that, and I hope everyone will vote 
to reject this continuing series of disapproval resolutions against the 
people of Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record four letters of support for this 
resolution, letters from the D.C. Police Union, National Fraternal 
Order of Police, National Association of Police Organizations, and the 
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.

                                              DC Police Union,

                                 Washington, DC, February 6, 2023.
     Speaker Kevin McCarthy,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker McCarthy: I am writing as Chairman of the 
     Fraternal Order of Police, Metropolitan Police Department 
     Labor Committee, D.C. Police Union (``D.C. Police Union'') 
     and on behalf of the nearly 3,500 members of the D.C. Police 
     Union regarding in support of the disapproval resolution 
     regarding a dangerous law that the D.C. Council has passed 
     that will embolden criminals, dramatically increase crime, 
     and render police officers in the District powerless to 
     adequately police the City.
       On January 17, 2023, the D.C. Council overrode Mayor Muriel 
     Bowser's veto of the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 (the 
     ``RCCA''). The RCCA eliminates mandatory minimum sentences 
     for all crimes, drastically reduces the maximum penalties for 
     crimes such as carjacking, and eliminates accomplice 
     liability for felony murder. The provisions in this bill will 
     create lawlessness, prevent police from holding criminals 
     accountable, and increase the number of officers who leave 
     the department.


   The RCCA Eliminates Mandatory Minimum Sentences and Dramatically 
                  Reduces Statutory Maximum Sentences

       The RCCA eliminates all mandatory minimum sentences in the 
     District and dramatically reduces the statutory maximum 
     sentence which may be imposed for nearly all crimes. This 
     reckless legislation brings the District into uncharted and 
     dangerous territory. Indeed, the Council has conceded that 
     ``no U.S. jurisdiction has entirely eliminated mandatory 
     minimums.'' Despite this, the Council has persisted in its 
     irresponsible encouragement of lawlessness in the District. 
     The RCCA promotes crime by eliminating the certainty of 
     punishment for offenders through the elimination of mandatory 
     minimums while simultaneously stripping judges of the ability 
     to impose a punishment that matches the severity of the 
     offense through the dramatic reduction in statutory maximums.


   Elimination of Accomplice Liability for Felony Murder Prosecutions

       Section 22A-2201 of the RRCA eliminates accomplice 
     liability for felony murder prosecutions in the District. 
     Accomplice liability for felony murder is critical in 
     establishing liability across multiple perpetrators when 
     evidence is otherwise unable to prove which perpetrator 
     committed the ``lethal act.'' By eliminating accomplice 
     liability, the RCCA ensures that police and prosecutors will 
     be unable to hold the most violent and dangerous criminals 
     accountable.


                 Reduction in Penalties for Carjacking

       The RCCA dramatically decreases the penalties for 
     carjackings, despite the fact that carjackings have spiked in 
     the District over the past two years. The RCCA endangers 
     District residents and encourages lawlessness by reducing the 
     penalties for carjacking offenses. Doing so also removes a 
     critical degree of discretion from judges who, previously, 
     were given proper latitude to craft a punishment that fit the 
     severity of the crime.


   Requirement of MPD Officers to Undergo an Indeterminate Amount of 
                           Extensive Training

       The sweeping changes to the criminal code in the RCCA will 
     require D.C. police officers to receive extensive training 
     and learn and entirely new criminal code in the District. The 
     extensive retraining and overtime that will be required comes 
     at a time when the number of officers in the District is at 
     historical lows as a result of anti-police legislation passed 
     by the Council. The RCCA will undoubtedly take a further toll 
     of D.C. police officers and accelerate the current exodus of 
     officers from the District.
       This anti-police, pro-crime law will create a mass exodus 
     of police officers from the District and will unquestionably 
     make the District of Columbia more dangerous for citizens who 
     live in the District, individuals who work in the District, 
     and tourists that travel to the District. As a result, the 
     D.C. Police Union strongly urges the House Oversight and 
     Accountability Committee to take all action necessary to 
     prevent this reckless legislation from becoming law.
           Respectfully,
                                               Greggory Pemberton,
     Chairman, D.C. Police Union.
                                  ____



                           National Fraternal Order of Police,

                                 Washington, DC, February 6, 2023.
     Hon. Kevin O. McCarthy,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hakeem S. Jeffries,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steven J. Scalise,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Katherine M. Clark,
     Minority Whip, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker and Representatives Jeffries, Scalise, and 
     Clark: I am writing on behalf of the members of the Fraternal 
     Order of Police to advise you of our support for H.J. Res. 
     26, a resolution disapproving the adoption of the Revised 
     Criminal Code Act (RCCA) of 2022 by the Washington, D.C. City 
     Council.
       The union representing the men and women of the Washington, 
     D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) is proudly FOP and 
     the officers we represent have made it clear to us and to the 
     residents of the city that the RCCA will embolden criminals, 
     dramatically increase crime and violence, and render police 
     officers in the District of Columbia virtually powerless to 
     adequately police the city and keep its residents and 
     visitors safe.
       On January 17, 2023, the D.C. Council overrode Mayor Muriel 
     Bowser's veto of the RCCA. Mayor Bowser, like the men and 
     women of the MPD recognize that it will quickly have a 
     negative impact on public safety in the District. The RCCA 
     eliminates mandatory minimum sentences for all crimes, 
     drastically reduces the maximum penalties for crimes such as 
     carjacking, and eliminates accomplice liability for felony 
     murder.
       These so-called ``reforms'' have been implemented in other 
     jurisdictions and have led inevitably to greater violence and 
     crime across our country. Having it happen here, in our 
     nation's capital, will have a ripple effect and we are very 
     concerned that other cities will model their reforms on laws 
     like the RCCA.
       To reduce the authority of law enforcement officers and 
     erect numerous obstacles to effective prosecutions and just 
     sentences in the middle of a national crime epidemic is at 
     variance with common sense! It is also contributing to the 
     recruitment and retention crisis in the District and around 
     the nation. In the last three years, more than 500 officers 
     have left MPD and many cite their terrible treatment by the 
     City Council as the reason for their departure.
       We urge the House to adopt H.J. Res. 26 and disapprove of 
     the RCCA.
       We further urge that the House review and consider a 
     similar disapproval resolution for the Comprehensive Policing 
     and Justice Amendment Act of 2022 which was enacted by the 
     City Council on 19 January 2023 without Mayor Bowser's 
     signature. Under the guise of police reform, the Act attacks 
     the rights of D.C. law enforcement officers, including 
     restricting their right to bargain collectively and 
     destroying their ability to challenge disciplinary matters 
     taken without just cause. The law is anti-police, pro-crime, 
     and the leading reason for the exodus of officers from the 
     MPD. Like the RCCA, it will make the District of Columbia 
     more dangerous for citizens who live in the District, 
     individuals who work in the District, and tourists visiting 
     the District. As a result, the D.C. Police Union respectfully 
     requests your assistance in defeating these horrible laws.
       On behalf of the more than 364,000 members of the Fraternal 
     Order of Police, we strongly urge all Members of the U.S. 
     House of Representatives to support and pass H.J. Res. 26 to 
     protect the safety of the public in Washington, D.C. If I can 
     provide any additional information about this bill, please do 
     not hesitate to contact me or Executive Director Jim Pasco in 
     our Washington, D.C. office.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Patrick Yoes,
     National President.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                   Police Organizations, Inc.,

                                 Alexandria, VA, February 7, 2023.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker McCarthy and Minority Leader Jeffries: On 
     behalf of the National Association of Police Organizations 
     (NAPO) and the over 241,000 sworn law enforcement officers we 
     represent across the country, I am writing to advise you of 
     our concerns with the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 (D.C. 
     Act 24-789), as enacted by the Council of the District of 
     Columbia on January 17, 2023, and our subsequent support for 
     H.J. Res. 26.
       According to the Metropolitan Police Department's crime 
     data, from this time last year, the District of Columbia has 
     experienced an increase in homicides, carjackings, and theft. 
     Particularly, D.C. is amid a rise in gun violence and 
     homicide rates among the city's youth. Yet, the Council still 
     voted to enact the revised criminal code that lowers 
     penalties for the crimes most impacting the city and its 
     residents, including carjacking, illegal firearm possession, 
     and robbery, and it will eliminate almost all mandatory 
     minimum sentences.
       Proponents of the Revised Code believe that it will ensure 
     that sentences better fit their crimes and will give 
     nonviolent, low risk offenders a chance to become productive

[[Page H793]]

     members of society. While NAPO agrees that these are laudable 
     goals--to ensure the punishment fits the crime--we disagree 
     on how this law accomplishes those goals. We continue to 
     believe that mandatory minimums are a strong deterrent for 
     criminals and an important tool in helping law enforcement 
     keep our communities safe from violent crime.
       In addition, the Revised Code significantly changes the law 
     of self-defense for law enforcement officers that would 
     considerably constrain an officer's ability to protect 
     themselves and the public when confronted with imminent 
     death. Under the Revised Code, the considerations the officer 
     must make when faced with the need to use deadly force are 
     not only unrealistic in the rapidly unfolding scenario of an 
     attack upon an officer, they also create the perverse 
     situation where a suspect who escalates his/her dangerous 
     behavior toward an officer, to the point of deadly force 
     being an option, is more likely to be let go than a less-
     violent suspect.
       NAPO is concerned that the Revised Criminal Code Act, if 
     allowed to be enacted into law, will decrease public safety 
     and leave crime victims in a continual search for justice. 
     Therefore, we support H.J. Res. 26, disapproving of the 
     Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022, so that the Council of the 
     District of Columbia can work with Mayor Muriel Bowser to 
     revise the criminal code in a way that will not benefit 
     violent criminals over victims and will make the city safer.
       We appreciate your consideration of our concerns with the 
     Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022. If we can provide any 
     assistance, please feel free to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                         William J. Johnson, Esq.,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                           Federal Law Enforcement


                                         Officers Association,

                                 Washington, DC, February 7, 2023.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Speaker McCarthy, I am writing on behalf of the almost 
     32,000 members of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
     Association (FLEOA) to express our strong support for H.J. 
     Res 26, ``Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia 
     Council in approving the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022.''
       In the past several years, there has been a dramatic 
     increase in multiple categories of violent crime, including 
     murders, homicides, robberies, aggravated assaults and 
     carjackings. Areas across the United States are experiencing 
     this heightened level of violent crime, with much violence 
     being highly concentrated in lower socioeconomic and minority 
     communities. These residents should not need to live in fear 
     for their safety.
       So far in 2023, Washington D.C. is experiencing a 29 
     percent increase in homicides, an 89 percent increase in 
     motor vehicle thefts, and an overall 18 percent increase in 
     total crime. These statistics are shocking for any community, 
     but particularly shameful for our nation's capital city.
       The primary goal of community leaders should be to provide 
     law enforcement the effective tools to counter and prevent 
     violent criminal activity. As proposed, the Revised Criminal 
     Code Act of 2022 ties the hands of our law enforcement 
     professionals. Therefore, FLEOA strongly supports this 
     resolution disapproving of the Revision Criminal Code.
       We are grateful for your leadership on this issue and your 
     efforts to ensure that all law enforcement officers 
     nationwide have the ability to serve and protect the American 
     public.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Larry Cosme,

                                   National President, Federal Law
                                 Enforcement Officers Association.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. COMER. The D.C. Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 is 
irresponsible. It is dangerous. It is playing with the livelihoods of 
all who live in or visit D.C. by gutting the local justice system and 
allowing emboldened criminals to remain on the streets.
  This Congress must swiftly exercise its constitutional role 
concerning the District of Columbia and reject this misguided 
legislation from going into effect.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to unite in support 
of law and order and support this necessary resolution of disapproval.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I condemn H. Res. 26 in the strongest 
terms, which seeks to nullify the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022, 
enacted by the council of the District of Columbia (DC). This bill is 
nothing more than a naked power grab on the part of House Republicans 
to enforce the will of Congress on the duly elected local 
representatives of the District of Columbia. I approach the subject of 
home rule as a former local government official having served on the 
Fairfax County Board of Supervisors for 14 years, including five as 
chairman and as a former chairman of the Council of Governments. I know 
what it takes to manage public safety. I cannot imagine how a local 
government can function efficiently or effectively, if each of its 
public safety decisions requires Congressional approval. I have 
consistently supported autonomy for the District and would argue 
Congress' actions have actually had a deleterious effect on the 
District and its residents. D.C.'s lack of autonomy affects the entire 
National Capital Region, especially the thousands of my constituents 
who are civil servants and work in the District. I hope the irony of 
this situation is not lost on those who support the conservative 
principles of limited government and states' rights. Let me remind my 
colleagues of what my fellow Virginian, James Madison, said in the 
Federalist Papers, Number 43, with respect to the intent of the 
Congressional authority. In referring to the residents of this federal 
District, Madison said ``they will have had their voice in the election 
of the government which is to exercise authority over them; as a 
municipal legislature for local purposes.'' There is no more basic 
exercise of municipal authority than protecting public safety.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 
26, a resolution disapproving the action of the District of Columbia 
Council in approving the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022.
  This resolution is not only a brazen and misguided measure seeking to 
uphold decades of racially systemic policies of criminal injustice, it 
is an insulting attempt to trample on the rights and the will of the 
people in the District of Columbia.
  By subjecting thousands of Black residents of Washington, D.C. to 
criminalization and incarceration, the Revised Criminal Code Act of 
2022 was the first comprehensive revision of the D.C. code since the 
year 1901, something that should've been revised long before.
  However, in contrast to the majority of other states, D.C. did not 
update its criminal statues throughout the 1960s and 1970s.
  As a result of the antiquated laws, which had been in place for 
decades, the human rights and freedoms of Washingtonians has been 
compromised, resulting in D.C. having one of the highest imprisonment 
rates in the nation, whereby Black males account for more than 95% of 
those who are behind bars.
  The 2022 revision was a necessary push forward, and for the 
Republicans within this congress to attempt to undo these revisions, 
shows a rejection of Home Rule.
  The revisions helped to correct many of the faults that the District 
of Columbia continuously ran into with the district itself making the 
necessary corrections with the support of the public.
  The D.C. Criminal Code Reform Commission was formed by the D.C. 
Council to revise the statutes to guarantee that the revisions of 
offenses and punishments are precise, consistent, reasonable, and 
constitutional.
  The District of Columbia Public Defender Service, the District of 
Columbia Attorney General, legal professionals, and the general public 
were among the sources of input that the Commission consulted.
  Members of Congress should not use their own policy judgment to 
replace that of the elected officials within D.C.
  Prior to these revisions simple assault carried a sentence of less 
than six months in prison, while the threat of simple assault carried a 
20-year sentence.
  Possession of self-defense spray and possession of a fully automatic 
machine gun carried the same maximum penalty of one year.
  Some offenses can be traced back to the District's Black Codes and 
Slave Codes and others that were introduced by segregationists from 
states outside D.C.
  The almost 700,000 individuals who live in Washington, D.C., are 
capable of self-government and through the Revised Criminal Code Act of 
2022, proved themselves as such.
  Congress is not judge, jury and executioner and should not overstep 
its place within Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. has its sole right 
to govern its jurisdiction and citizens.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 97, the previous question is ordered on 
the joint resolution.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

[[Page H794]]

  

                          ____________________