[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 15, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H3243-H3251]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1615
  D.C. CRIMINAL REFORMS TO IMMEDIATELY MAKE EVERYONE SAFE ACT OF 2024

  Mr. DONALDS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1227, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 7530) to limit youth offender status in the District 
of Columbia to individuals 18 years of age or younger, to direct the 
Attorney General of the District of Columbia to establish and operate a 
publicly accessible website containing updated statistics on juvenile 
crime in the District of Columbia, to amend the District of Columbia 
Home Rule Act to prohibit the Council of the District of Columbia from 
enacting changes to existing criminal liability sentences, and for 
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1227, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Oversight and Accountability printed in the bill, shall be considered 
as adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 7530

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``D. C. Criminal Reforms to 
     Immediately Make Everyone Safe Act of 2024'' or the ``DC 
     CRIMES Act of 2024''.

     SEC. 2. YOUTH OFFENDERS.

       (a) Limiting Youth Offender Status in District of Columbia 
     to Individuals 18 Years of Age or Younger.--Section 2(6) of 
     the Youth Rehabilitation Act of 1985 (sec. 24-901(6), D.C. 
     Official Code) is amended by striking ``24 years of age or 
     younger'' and inserting ``18 years of age or younger''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Repeal consideration of individuals 18 through 24 years 
     of age in strategic plan for facilities, treatment, and 
     services.--Section 3(a-1) of such Act (sec. 24-902(a-1), D.C. 
     Official Code) is amended by striking paragraph (3).
       (2) Community service for individuals under order of 
     probation.--Section 4(a)(2) of such Act (sec. 24-903(a)(2), 
     D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking ``15 to 24 years 
     of age'' and inserting ``15 to 18 years of age15 to 18 years 
     of age''.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF WEBSITE ON DISTRICT OF 
                   COLUMBIA JUVENILE CRIME STATISTICS.

       (a) Establishment and Operation.--Subchapter I of chapter 
     23 of title 16, District of Columbia Official Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 16-2340a. Website of updated statistics on juvenile 
       crime

       ``(a) Establishment and Operation of Website.--The Attorney 
     General of the District of Columbia shall establish and 
     operate a publicly accessible website which contains data on 
     juvenile crime in the District of Columbia, including each of 
     the following statistical measures:
       ``(1) The total number of juveniles arrested each year.
       ``(2) The total number and percentage of juveniles arrested 
     each year, broken down by age, race, and sex.
       ``(3) Of the total number of juveniles arrested each year, 
     the total number and percentage arrested for petty crime, 
     including the following crimes:
       ``(A) Vandalism.
       ``(B) Theft.
       ``(C) Shoplifting.
       ``(4) Of the total number of juveniles arrested each year, 
     the total number and percentage arrested for crime of 
     violence (as defined in section 23-1331(4)).
       ``(5) Of the total number of juveniles arrested each year, 
     the total number and percentage who were arrested for their 
     first offense.
       ``(6) Of the total number of juveniles arrested each year, 
     the total number and percentage who had been arrested 
     previously.
       ``(7) Of the total number of juveniles arrested each year 
     who had been arrested previously, the total number and 
     percentage of the number of arrests.

[[Page H3244]]

       ``(8) Of the total number of juveniles arrested each year, 
     the declination rate for prosecutions by the Office of the 
     Attorney General for the District of Columbia.
       ``(9) Of the total number of juveniles sentenced each year, 
     the number and percentage who were tried as adults.
       ``(10) Of the total number of juveniles prosecuted each 
     year, the number and percentage who were not sentenced, who 
     were sentenced to a misdemeanor, and who were sentenced to a 
     felony.
       ``(11) Of the total number of juveniles sentenced each 
     year, the number and percentage of the length of time that 
     will be served in a correctional facility as provided by the 
     sentence.
       ``(b) Updates.--The Attorney General shall update the 
     information contained on the website on a monthly basis.
       ``(c) Maintaining Archive of Information.--The Attorney 
     General shall ensure that the information contained on the 
     website is archived appropriately to provide indefinite 
     public access to historical data of juvenile arrests and 
     prosecutions.
       ``(d) Format.--The Attorney General shall ensure that the 
     information contained in the website, including historical 
     data described in subsection (c), is available in a machine-
     readable format available for bulk download.
       ``(e) Prohibiting Disclosure of Personally Identifiable 
     Information.--In carrying out this section, the Attorney 
     General shall ensure that the website does not include any 
     juvenile's personally identifiable information.
       ``(f) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `crime' has the meaning given the term 
     `offense' in section 23-1331(2); and
       ``(2) the term `juvenile' has the meaning given the term 
     `youth offender' in section 2(6) of the Youth Rehabilitation 
     Act of 1985 (sec. 24-901(6), D.C. Official Code).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments Relating to Authorized Release of 
     Information.--
       (1) Juvenile case records of family court.--Section 16-
     2331, District of Columbia Official Code, is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (j); and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (h) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(i) Notwithstanding subsection (b) of this section, a 
     person shall provide information contained in juvenile case 
     records to the Attorney General for purposes of the website 
     established and operated under section 16-2340a.''.
       (2) Juvenile social records of family court.--Section 16-
     2332, District of Columbia Official Code, is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i); and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (g) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(h) Notwithstanding subsection (b) of this section, a 
     person shall provide information contained in juvenile social 
     records to the Attorney General for purposes of the website 
     established and operated under section 16-2340a.''.
       (3) Police and other law enforcement records.--Section 16-
     2333, District of Columbia Official Code, is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (f) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(g) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, a 
     person shall provide information contained in law enforcement 
     records and files concerning a child to the Attorney General 
     for purposes of the website established and operated under 
     section 16-2340a.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The Attorney General of the District 
     of Columbia shall establish the website under section 16-
     2341, District of Columbia Official Code, as added by 
     subsection (a), not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. PROHIBITING COUNCIL FROM ENACTING CHANGES TO EXISTING 
                   CRIMINAL LIABILITY SENTENCES.

       Section 602(a) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act 
     (sec. 1-206.02(a), D.C. Official Code) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (9);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (10) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(11) enact any act, resolution, or rule to change any 
     criminal liability sentence in effect on the date of the 
     enactment of the DC CRIMES Act of 2024.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable 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 Florida (Mr. Donalds) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DONALDS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may 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 Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DONALDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7530, the DC CRIMES Act.
  The Committee on Oversight and Accountability has held three hearings 
with D.C. officials. Many members of the committee have met privately 
with various D.C. officials to discuss the crime crisis in our Nation's 
Capital.
  Throughout this work, one thing has been made abundantly clear: The 
progressive policies of the District of Columbia City Council are 
simply not working.
  Last year, the Congress successfully blocked the D.C. Council's 
Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 by passing the bipartisan H.J. Res. 
26, the first law passed by the 118th Congress. That was a great first 
step toward addressing the rising crime in D.C., but that only kept the 
problem from getting much worse.
  The bill we are considering today expands upon that work. The DC 
CRIMES Act overturns targeted portions of the D.C. Council's Youth 
Rehabilitation Act by amending the definition of a youth offender from 
a person under the age of 25 to under the age of 18.
  Let me restate: The DC CRIMES Act overturns the targeted portions of 
the D.C. Council's Youth Rehabilitation Act by amending the definition 
of a youth offender from somebody under the age of 25 to under the age 
of 18.
  Currently, D.C. Code allows a criminal under the age of 25 to be 
given the same leniency that is afforded to minors. This bill requires 
that we treat adult criminals as adults like the rest of the country 
does.
  As juvenile crime soars throughout the District, the bill also 
requires the D.C. attorney general to create a publicly available 
website that tracks juvenile crime data. This data will inform 
Congress, the District's elected officials, the Metropolitan Police 
Department, the public, and others about the severity of juvenile crime 
in the District of Columbia.
  Finally, the bill prohibits the D.C. Council from amending its 
sentencing and criminal liability laws, locking into place the current 
D.C. criminal law and leaving Congress as the sole authority to amend 
such laws in the future.
  The D.C. Council would have succeeded in implementing radical soft-
on-crime policies if it were not for the bipartisan effort of this 
Congress to disapprove of the D.C. Council's legislation. Even 
Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser vetoed the progressive criminal reform 
package, only for her veto to be overturned by the D.C. City Council.
  The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is committed to its 
constitutional responsibility to oversee the District of Columbia. We 
cannot allow further pro-crime policies to be put into place while this 
crisis continues.
  Citizens of D.C. and the visitors of our Nation's Capital deserve to 
feel safe. This bill is a great step toward ensuring our Capital City 
is going to be safe.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I start by humbly suggesting that the majority needs 
someone new working on legislative acronyms for these messaging bills. 
This is the DC CRIMES Act, which stands for the D.C. Criminal Reforms 
to Immediately Make Everyone Safe Act of 2024.
  ``Immediately make everyone safe.'' That doesn't sound like 
legislation. It sounds like a Penn & Teller magic trick to me.
  If the gentleman from Florida can actually immediately make everyone 
safe, the gentleman should not only be Donald Trump's running mate, as 
I keep hearing about, but the gentleman should be the Mayor of the 
District of Columbia.
  The D.C. Criminal Reforms to Immediately Make Everyone Safe Act is 
the fourth bill that the majority has brought to the floor to vilify, 
heckle, and micromanage the elected Mayor and Council of the District 
of Columbia on the appalling conceit that the distinguished Members of 
the Republican Conference from Florida or Kentucky or Arizona care more 
about public safety and public welfare in Washington, D.C., than do the 
700,000 people who

[[Page H3245]]

live there and their elected officials on the D.C. Council and the 
Mayor.
  This one is even more sweeping and radical than their prior bills. It 
doesn't simply overturn one specific current D.C. law. It permanently 
strips D.C. of authority over any of its criminal laws, making this 
legislation, perhaps inadvertently, I concede, the largest proposed 
rollback of D.C.'s authority to govern itself in nearly 30 years.
  Our colleagues may be shocked to learn during this debate what 
exactly it is they are being asked to vote for today. At the Rules 
Committee meeting yesterday, I asked the Republican Members whether 
they understood what this bill actually does if you take the time to 
read the language. None of them seemed to know.
  Let me explain. The bill amends the D.C. Home Rule Act to say that 
the D.C. Council may not ``enact any act, resolution, or rule to change 
any criminal . . . sentence in effect on the date of the enactment of 
the DC CRIMES Act of 2024.''

  In other words, if this bill becomes law, the D.C. Council could 
never increase criminal penalties again without Congress acting first, 
nor could it create any new criminal offenses at all.
  This is their big tough-on-crime package the majority offers the 
Congress: No increases in criminal sentences indefinitely in the 
District of Columbia, and no new offenses can be passed at all.
  Say the D.C. Council wanted to create a new criminal offense for 
directing an organized retail theft ring. Mr. Donalds' bill would 
prevent them from doing it.
  Say D.C. wanted to make it a crime to possess a firearm with a 
removed or altered or mutilated serial number. Under Mr. Donalds' bill, 
they would be barred from doing so.
  In fact, that is precisely what D.C. just did a few months ago. My 
Republican colleagues seem blissfully oblivious to the fact that, 
earlier this year, responding to the spike in crime occurring across 
America--not just in Washington, D.C., of course--the D.C. Council 
passed a 63-page law called the Secure DC Omnibus Emergency Amendment 
Act of 2024, which dramatically increased criminal penalties for nine 
different crimes and created six new criminal offenses.
  The D.C. bill, which was passed unanimously by the council and signed 
into law by the Mayor, does what Republicans have so eloquently been 
orating about on the floor. It increased criminal penalties, including 
for gun crimes, violence in parks, violence committed against 
vulnerable people, and violence committed against rideshare drivers, 
Metro drivers, and transit workers.
  The Secure DC Omnibus Emergency Amendment Act also created a host of 
new offenses, including directing a retail theft ring, strangulation, 
firing bullets in public, possessing a firearm with a removed or 
altered serial number, and unlawful discarding of firearms or 
ammunition.
  They addressed the actual problems that they are experiencing in 
their city, something our colleagues seriously know nothing about and 
don't care about. If Mr. Donalds' bill had actually been law at the 
time, the D.C. Council would have been barred from enacting all of 
these tough-on-crime penalties altogether, and they will be barred in 
the future from responding to the kinds of spikes in crime that they 
experience.
  Amazingly, the gentleman proposes this naked power grab against 
Washington, denying them the crime-fighting tools they need, despite 
the fact that they have done a good job and total crime in D.C. is down 
16 percent in 2024 compared to the same period last year, which was 
conceded by the Republicans in the Rules Committee yesterday.
  There has been a 26-percent reduction in violent crime in 2024, which 
they conceded in the Rules Committee yesterday, and a 22-percent 
reduction in homicides.
  In other words, local democracy works. Let the local governments 
respond to the problems they are having, but our colleagues insist that 
crime is still spiking in D.C., despite the evidence to the contrary.
  What is their big tough-on-crime solution? The bold solution 
Republicans offer us to combat crime in the Nation's Capital is to 
prohibit the D.C. Council from ever increasing any criminal penalties 
and blocking the D.C. Council from ever creating any new crimes.
  If that is not what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
intend to do, then I think my colleagues need to go back and try again 
with some new legislation.
  In any event, for my Republican colleagues who love to castigate the 
people of D.C., who I concede voted more than 90 percent against Donald 
Trump in the last election, I would respectfully suggest that the 
majority considers the following fact: D.C. has higher maximum criminal 
penalties than many Republican States do. Let's compare.
  The maximum penalty for armed robbery in D.C. is 30 years. In 
Kentucky, represented by the chairman of the Oversight Committee, the 
maximum is 20 years, 50 percent less. In North Dakota, it is 10 years, 
or 66 percent less.
  In D.C., criminals can receive a 40-year sentence for armed 
carjacking. In Kentucky, represented by the chairman of the Oversight 
Committee, carjacking is not a separate independent offense. You have 
to charge somebody with armed robbery, but even then, you can only get 
half the sentence you can get in D.C. for carjacking.
  Despite all of the fine election-year rhetoric we have heard, there 
is something profoundly antithetical to our system of government in 
what the gentleman is proposing. If you read the Declaration of 
Independence, Thomas Jefferson set forth a bill of particulars against 
King George and the Parliament, and one of the central allegations of 
it was that they were denying the colonists the right to define 
criminal offenses for themselves. People over in England were dictating 
to people in our country what the criminal offenses should be, and that 
is like, with all due respect, the gentleman from Florida dictating to 
the people in Washington, D.C., how they should order their affairs 
when it comes to the criminal law.
  Jefferson would have understood very well the situation that we are 
in, and our friends in Washington, 713,000 taxpaying, draftable U.S. 
citizens, have petitioned for statehood because they no longer want to 
be kicked around by other people's Representatives. They want to have 
an equal say in this body and an equal say in the U.S. Senate. They 
don't want other people's Representatives telling them that they can't 
pass the criminal offenses or the increased criminal sentences that 
they want for their crimes.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DONALDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the fact that the ranking member 
thinks so much about my future. What I think about these days are 
actually the people of Washington, D.C., and all the people who come to 
visit the Nation's Capital.

                              {time}  1630

  I also find it very interesting that, yes, the D.C. City Council 
finally did something on March 11 after the Oversight Committee started 
working on solutions because the District of Columbia City Council 
refused to actually address the crime issues in D.C. until very 
recently. That is important for people to understand.
  Secondarily, we do have a constitutional obligation to the District 
of Columbia. The ranking member is well aware of that. Congress does 
have the authority to execute that authority if the council will not do 
it. They have refused until very recently, and so Congress is going to 
assert its authority to make sure that we try to secure the District to 
the best of our ability.
  Last thing, to my friend on the other side of the aisle, I doubt 
anybody will confuse me with King George. I don't think we look alike. 
With that being said, it is very different when you are talking about a 
far-off capital across the ocean versus the Nation's Capital sitting in 
the Federal enclave, which is the District of Columbia. Congress has a 
responsibility to the District, and Congress should assert that 
authority with this language.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Biggs).
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding to me.

[[Page H3246]]

  Before I get into the nub, I will just respond to a couple things.
  The baseline, the reason that you come down 16 percent and still have 
rabid crime is because you were so high the years before, and they 
were. Washington, D.C., was. We know it; you know it; everybody knows 
it.
  I would also suggest that my friend from Florida is correct. The D.C. 
Council had not taken action that they needed to take. In fact, they 
had gone the other way and only recently were converted after Congress 
put pressure on them to make changes. By the way, that was bipartisan 
pressure, but somehow, we are told that is improper now.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, H.R. 7530, the DC CRIMES 
Act, which takes necessary steps to improve public safety in our 
Nation's Capital for its residents and for our constituents.
  As violent crime skyrockets and D.C. police officer ranks continue to 
dwindle, the D.C. Council continues to push progressive policies that 
make everyone in D.C. unsafe. Their inaction has endangered residents 
of and visitors to our Nation's Capital, which is why in 2022, when the 
D.C. Council passed the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022, I think we 
were all shocked.
  The bill eliminated mandatory minimum sentences for all crimes except 
first-degree murder, eliminated life sentences, and reduced maximum 
penalties for violent crimes.
  What whipsawed them back in just about an 18-month period? I suggest 
to you, respectfully, that it was because Congress was exercising its 
constitutional oversight authority over the District of Columbia, and 
that persuaded the council that they were in the eye and being watched 
by Congress. Their residents were also unhappy.
  I am going to have to suggest, respectfully, that it wasn't the D.C. 
Council responding to crime across America and not just in D.C., which 
is an ironic argument to make, quite frankly, when you are claiming 
that Congress has no authority, when we have constitutional authority 
to oversee the actions of D.C. The reality is, the council was 
responding to oversight that is authorized by the Constitution.
  Congress responded by blocking the reckless D.C. act from taking 
effect by advancing the bipartisan H.J. Res. 26 into law. The response 
from the D.C. Council was to then pass another bill, the Comprehensive 
Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act, which targeted D.C. 
Metropolitan Police Department officers and their ability to combat 
rising crime.
  Congress attempted to block this act with H.J. Res. 42, but President 
Biden vetoed the bipartisan disapproval resolution, ensuring D.C.'s 
antipolice reforms went into effect.
  The D.C. Metropolitan Police Department has lost over 1,200 members 
since 2020 and staffing remains at the lowest level in 50 years, with 
officers often citing the D.C. Council's restrictive laws as their 
reasons for leaving. In a hearing last year, former D.C. Police Chief 
Contee noted that MPD needed an additional 800 officers to be fully 
staffed.
  As a result of the council's continued soft-on-crime agenda, crime in 
D.C. has increased 30 percent in 2023 compared to the previous year.
  Homicides were up 29 percent over 2022 and homicides doubled since 
2012, which is why, when my colleague across the aisle begins saying 
they are down 16 percent in 2024, why do you think that is? It is 
because you had hit records in 2023 and now you are beginning to take 
this seriously because Congress is acting.
  Violent crime increased by 37 percent from 2022 to 2023, with 
robberies rising 65 percent.
  Motor vehicle thefts increased by 107 percent in 2023 compared to 
2022.
  Congressman Donalds' bill ensures that Congress is fulfilling its 
constitutional responsibilities to oversee the district by lowering 
D.C.'s definition of youth to 18 and prohibiting D.C. from enacting new 
soft-on-crime sentencing changes in the future, which they no doubt 
will once Congress averts its eye from D.C.
  However, if we enact Congressman Donalds' bill, they will not be able 
to revert to their soft-on-crime ways, which has made D.C. unsafe for 
people, the millions of people who want to come and visit here and for 
the residents of this city.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Arizona 
invites us to believe that the people of Washington, D.C., don't want 
to respond to spikes in crime in their own city. It is only in response 
to hearings called by Republican Members of Congress. I think that is 
an affront to our fellow citizens who obviously care deeply about what 
is going on in their own city, and I daresay a lot more than those 
of us who represent other jurisdictions, because we care principally 
about the places that we represent.

  Mr. Speaker, I will say before yielding to my friend from the 
District of Columbia that you don't have to look like a monarch or a 
tyrant to act like a monarch or a tyrant.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the distinguished, nonvoting delegate.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this radical, undemocratic, and 
paternalistic bill, as do the three top local, elected District of 
Columbia officials: Mayor Muriel Bowser, Council Chair Phil Mendelson, 
and D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record their joint letter opposing this 
bill.
                                                     May 14, 2024.
     Hon. Mike Johnson,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries: We write today to 
     express our opposition to H.R. 7530, the ``DC CRIMES Act,'' 
     which we understand the House will consider this week.
       Since the start of the 118th Congress, the House has made a 
     number of attempts to legislate on local District affairs. We 
     always welcome opportunities to partner with Congress on 
     issues. But the proposals included in H.R. 7530 would 
     actually prevent the District government from taking steps to 
     address dynamic crime trends.
       In recent months, the Mayor and the Council have put into 
     place several pieces of public safety legislation that 
     included more than 100 new initiatives that have, among other 
     things, expanded pretrial detention for violent offenders and 
     enhanced penalties for certain gun crimes. Violent crime has 
     decreased by 25 percent and property crime has decreased by 
     14 percent when compared to the same period last year. The 
     Metropolitan Police Department (WPD) is making more arrests 
     and the Office of the Attorney General is prosecuting cases 
     at a rate almost double the prepandemic rates. And just this 
     week, the Council is continuing its work on a Fiscal Year 
     2025 budget proposed by the Mayor that will make further 
     strategic investments in MPD and crime prevention efforts.
       If H.R 7530 were law today, it would block us from taking 
     some of these steps. By prohibiting the Council from enacting 
     ``any act, resolution, or rule to change any criminal 
     liability sentence,'' the bill would prevent District 
     policymakers from responding to emerging crime trends by 
     enhancing criminal penalties, or even create new crimes. 
     Swift and certain consequences are essential to deterring 
     crime, and persistent congressional interference is at odds 
     with that goal. Given recent experience, these delays could 
     be extensive, preventing courts from imposing longer 
     sentences while legislation languishes in Congress.
       Due to the District's unique status, Congress already has a 
     role to play, particularly in fully funding the federal 
     agencies that are an integral part of our criminal justice 
     system. As we know you are both aware, the Fiscal Year 2024 
     (FY24) appropriations bill funding the Public Defender 
     Service for the District of Columbia (PDS) contains a 
     significant error that blocks the agency's access to a 
     portion of its budget. The loss of these funds will force PDS 
     to furlough staff for at least one day each week for the 
     remainder of the fiscal year starting in June, routinely 
     slowing down criminal proceedings. This delay only compounds 
     the difficulties posed by the numerous court vacancies that 
     Congress has failed to fill. PDS is a federal agency outside 
     of our control. We ask Congress to set aside H.R. 7530, and 
     work with us in partnership to ensure that PDS has the funds 
     it needs, and our court system is able to function.
           Sincerely,
     Muriel Bowser,
       Mayor of the District of Columbia.
     Phil Mendelson,
       Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia.
     Brian L. Schwalb,
       Attorney General for the District of Columbia.

[[Page H3247]]

  

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, before I discuss the substance of this bill, 
I want to discuss democracy and the lack of it in the District of 
Columbia.
  D.C. residents, who have all the obligations of American citizenship, 
have no voting representation in Congress, and Congress has the 
ultimate say on local D.C. matters.
  While my Republican colleagues are correct that Congress has the 
constitutional authority to legislate on local D.C. matters, their 
assertion that Congress has a constitutional duty to do so is simply 
wrong. Legislating on local D.C. matters is a choice. As the Supreme 
Court held in 1953, ``there is no constitutional barrier to the 
delegation by Congress to the District of Columbia of full legislative 
power.''
  D.C.'s local legislature, the council, has 13 members. The members 
are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how the 
members vote, they can vote them out of office. That is called 
democracy.
  Congress has 535 voting Members. The Members are elected by residents 
of their States. None are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents 
do not like how Members vote on local matters, they cannot vote them 
out of office. That is the antithesis of democracy.
  The merits of this bill should be irrelevant, since there is never 
justification for Congress legislating on local D.C. matters. However, 
I will discuss the bill.
  This bill would be the biggest rollback of D.C.'s self-government in 
a generation. This bill says the D.C. Council may not ``enact any act, 
resolution, or rule to change any criminal liability sentence in effect 
on the date of the enactment of the DC CRIMES Act of 2024.''
  This provision, which does not define the term ``criminal liability 
sentence,'' is as poorly drafted as it is offensive. It takes away 
D.C.'s authority to increase or decrease statutory criminal penalties. 
If D.C. wanted to increase penalties for violent crime, it could not do 
so. This bill could even be construed to prevent D.C. from establishing 
any new crimes at all.
  This bill also reduces the maximum age of eligibility for D.C.'s 
Youth Rehabilitation Amendment Act of 1985. D.C. is not the only 
jurisdiction to have such a so-called young adult offender law. 
Alabama, Florida, Michigan, New York, South Carolina, and Vermont have 
such laws. The sponsor of this bill is from one of those six States.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the Revolutionary War was fought to give 
consent to the governed and to end taxation without representation, yet 
D.C. residents cannot consent to any action taken by Congress and pay 
full Federal taxes. Indeed, D.C. pays more Federal taxes per capita 
than any State and more total Federal taxes than 20 States.
  If House Republicans cared about democratic principles or D.C. 
residents, they would bring to the floor my D.C. statehood bill, H.R. 
51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act, which would give D.C. residents 
voting representation in Congress and full local self-government.
  Congress has the constitutional authority to admit the State of 
Washington, D.C. It simply lacks the will.
  Mr. DONALDS. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to reassert that 
the Constitution is clear on this matter, that Congress does have 
responsibilities and that the District of Columbia is under the 
jurisdiction of the United States Congress. That has been clear since 
the beginning of the Republic.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Burchett).
  Mr. BURCHETT. Mr. Speaker, much has been made about the title of this 
bill, but I would remind my friends across the aisle that they had a 
bill called the Inflation Reduction Act and it spent over a trillion 
dollars and inflation has not been reduced.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, Mr. Donalds, for allowing me to 
speak.
  Right now the city of Washington, D.C., considers a criminal a youth 
offender if they are under 25 years old, yet you can be a Member of 
Congress at 25 years old. It seems the Washington City Council believes 
something magical happens on someone's 25th birthday, Mr. Speaker.
  They seem to believe that one day, dadgummit, you are a child who 
cannot be fully accountable for your actions and the next day you can 
serve in Congress. They are trying to be politically correct as always 
by not prosecuting criminals, and the city is suffering because of it.

  Last year, the House Oversight Committee held a hearing with the 
District of Columbia's Mayor on the rising crime in our Nation's 
Capital. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, a carjacking was happening just 
up the street less than a mile from where we are standing today. We can 
appreciate the irony there, but it is not surprising. Carjackings and 
all other kinds of crimes are happening around Washington at any given 
moment.
  Motor vehicle thefts increased by 107 percent last year alone. 
Violent crime increased by 37 percent, homicide increased by 29 
percent, and robberies increased by 65 percent. It is also worth noting 
that in the United States, most homicides are committed by people 20 to 
24 years old, Mr. Speaker.
  However, the City Council of our Nation's Capital is still pushing 
policies every day that prevent criminals from being brought to 
justice.
  The DC CRIMES Act forces Washington, D.C., to change its definition 
of juvenile back to kids under 18 years old. It also stops judges from 
sentencing youth offenders below the mandatory minimum requirements and 
prevents Washington from changing the current minimum sentencing laws.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to have some basic common sense. I 
know that is lacking in Washington. When people tell me something that 
is made of common sense, I tell them they have no place in Washington, 
D.C., today. That is apparent right here. I support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I will tell that family in the back that had that sweet 
little baby boy making those noises that he was not bothering us one 
bit.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. DONALDS. Mr. Speaker, could you please advise on how much time is 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 17\1/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  The gentleman from Maryland has 16 minutes remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members that the 
rules do not allow reference to persons in the gallery.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let's see, no one on the other side has contradicted the plain, 
commonsense interpretation of this bill, which is that the District of 
Columbia Council will now be disabled from ever increasing a criminal 
penalty again, a criminal sentence again, and the District of Columbia 
Council will never be able to create a new criminal offense like the 
one they just created for running a retail theft ring, which has become 
a problem across the country in a lot of places. A lot of States have 
legislated on that. I know Maryland has legislated on that.
  I am just wondering whether anyone on that side would yield for a 
question whether this is the deliberate intention of this legislation 
or it is just a mistake or whether they don't accept that plain, 
commonsense reading of the language of the bill because we are voting 
on something far more drastic and sweeping than what was represented by 
the sponsor's original statement.
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield 
his time to me? I would be glad to take that question.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Bishop), momentarily, so that he can answer my 
question.
  Are we interpreting it properly?
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. In part yes; in part no. That is to 
say, as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia just read the 
section, it prohibits the Council from enacting changes to existing 
criminal liability sentences.
  It does not prevent the D.C. Council from creating new crimes, like 
an organized retail crime act. It would prevent them from increasing 
sentences-- Mr.

[[Page H3248]]

RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. As I understand the answer, 
the District of Columbia would not be able to increase the penalty for 
rape or the penalty for murder or the penalty for child sex abuse.
  We might have a difference as to your second conclusion because, of 
course, it is increasing a criminal sentence to create a criminal 
sentence or offense where it didn't exist in the first place.
  In any event, you are creating grave constitutional doubt about new 
criminal offenses that might be created in the District of Columbia 
with this legislation.
  In any event, the first part is bad enough. The point is that, how is 
it tough on crime to say that the District of Columbia, as the 
gentleman just conceded, cannot increase criminal penalties if it 
chooses to in response to local circumstances?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DONALDS. Mr. Speaker, the only thing I would say in response to 
the gentleman from Maryland is that the D.C. Council has had ample 
opportunity to fix these issues in D.C., and they have refused until 
very recently, so it is just a matter of simple logic that unless 
Congress actually decides to use its authority, what would make us 
think that the D.C. Council will actually act in the interests of the 
citizens of the District?
  The citizens of the District, I am quite sure, would love to have a 
safe city. The issue is that the Council has not acted toward actually 
having a safe city, and that is a significant problem for the Federal 
enclave because, I will state again, D.C. is a Federal enclave. Article 
I, Section 8, Clause 17, the Federal enclave is under the jurisdiction 
of the United States Congress, and we are acting under this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Timmons.)
  Mr. TIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, D.C. is the modern-day Rome, a bastion of 
freedom for the world to see, and the front door of our great Nation. 
In my few short years serving the Fourth District of South Carolina in 
Congress, I have watched a once proud city succumb to violent crime, 
vagrancy, and fall into lawlessness.
  There are many factors at play here, but the bottom line is this: I 
want to, in good faith, tell parents from my district that it is safe 
for the kids to come visit the Nation's Capital on their school trip. 
Right now, I can't do that. I actually do the exact opposite when 
people come to my office. I tell them that D.C. is not safe; they 
should take Ubers.
  I have had time and time again where I have had people tell me that 
they have had serious issues. Just, I guess it was, a month ago, my 
commanding officer in the Air Force was staying in the Navy Yard. I 
told him not to walk to dinner. He did.
  I called him at 6:30 in the morning, and I said: I bet you walked to 
dinner.
  He said: You are right. I am about to go for a run.
  I said: Well, you can't because there is an active shooter outside 
your building.
  That was a month ago.
  All this after years of vilifying and defunding the police, the 
District's violent crime and property theft have never been more 
blatant. D.C. criminals have never acted so brazenly and with more 
perceived impunity than I have witnessed in my years in Washington.
  In fact, just today, at 1:40 this afternoon--and let me reiterate, 
this was 3 hours ago and in broad daylight--there was a stabbing just 
blocks away; a stabbing. Twelve hours before that there was an armed 
carjacking a few blocks north of there. The last 24 hours, we know how 
bad it is here, we were just on the GW campus where the mayor refused 
to enforce the rule of law. There were 250 people trespassing on the 
yard. The president of the university begged for the city to enforce 
the rule of law, and they didn't for 10 days. It required an Oversight 
hearing for her to actually do her job, to tell the MPD to arrest 
people.

  I mean, all of this on top of the fact that an Uber driver that fled 
Afghanistan--and he was driving Uber Eats--a bunch of children under 
the age of 20 but over the age of 15 stole his car and killed him. They 
are going to get out of jail within a year or two, and they are going 
to have no criminal history.
  Are we serious right now? So, yes, the D.C. Council has lost the 
faith of this institution.
  Just this Congress, three Members have been held at gunpoint or 
assaulted, three Members of Congress in the last 18 months. This is out 
of control.
  This is a small step in the right direction, but we have to respect 
the rule of law. We have to respect law enforcement, and we have to 
fund law enforcement. We should have 3,000 law enforcement officers in 
Washington, D.C. You are going to be down to 1,500 here shortly because 
of the way that the city council treats law enforcement. It is 
unacceptable.
  These changes are just mere steps in the right direction. A 25-year-
old is not a child. I can promise you this, in South Carolina, if a 16-
year-old, a group of 16-year-olds killed somebody, they are going to be 
in prison for a while. They are going to be in prison for quite a 
while. The fact that they are not is exactly why we are having to do 
this right now.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DONALDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. TIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate D.C.'s desire to have self-
rule, but there are responsibilities that come along with that. It 
seems that our Nation is a Nation in decline because of the lawlessness 
in Washington, D.C., and we have to get back on track. This is a step 
in the right direction.
  I thank my friend from Florida for proposing this legislation. I 
encourage all of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before the gentleman leaves the Chamber, I thought I might note, I am 
going to give him some examples, some anecdotes and data since he 
appears to be legislating by vignette: In Summerville, South Carolina, 
last week there was a severe armed carjacking by three teenage 
suspects. In April, a man wanted for murder in Rock Hill was captured 
following another carjacking at a Huntersville QuikTrip.
  I could give you a dozen of those. I don't think that the answer to 
any of that would be to disenfranchise the people of South Carolina or 
to have Congress usurp the State legislative authority or the local 
authority there.
  My friend from Florida describes the District of Columbia as a 
Federal enclave, which of course it is not. A Federal enclave is a 
Federal property or land, like in Rockville, Maryland, which is my 
district, where we have the NIH. That is a Federal enclave.
  This is the District constituting the seat of government set forth in 
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution.
  Now, both of my friends over there say, well, we are going to take 
just a small step in the right direction.
  How is it the right direction to deprive the people of the District 
of Columbia the power to have control over their own criminal 
sentencing, including the power to increase criminal sentences? If they 
had passed this legislation at the beginning of the year, they would 
have foreclosed the ability of the District of Columbia to increase 
criminal penalties across the board on a whole range of offenses and 
perhaps even to create new criminal offenses in the District.
  The gentleman from South Carolina lectured the people of Washington, 
D.C., about criminal incidents taking place here, and of course there 
are criminal incidents taking place also in South Carolina in the exact 
same way.
  However, how about something that took place even closer to home? How 
about the violent mob insurrection where a mob incited by the ex-
President violently assaulted Capitol Police officers and Metropolitan 
Police Department officers who were forced to deploy to the Capitol, 
and nearly 150 of them ended up brutalized, wounded, and hospitalized 
after being hit over the head or in the chest or stabbed or speared by 
steel pipes, Confederate battle flags, Trump flags, and American flags, 
shamefully?
  Yet, we have the ex-President and a number of people who are his 
sycophants over on that side of the aisle describing people who are in 
jail for that, a majority of them having pled guilty

[[Page H3249]]

for those offenses, the others convicted after due process of law, 
calling those people hostages.
  A hostage is someone who has been illegally abducted by a terrorist 
or criminal entity, like Hamas, and held for a financial or political 
ransom. Yet, shamefully, there are people on that side of the aisle who 
call the prisoners who have been convicted after having been given 
every aspect of American due process and right to counsel, they are 
calling them hostages or political prisoners, like Alexei Navalny or 
Nelson Mandela. That is what they have come to.
  They want to denounce a criminal event that happened six blocks away. 
What about the massive criminal event, the most massive criminal event 
in the history of the Nation's Capital that came right into this 
Chamber, forcing the Senators and Representatives to flee, and they 
won't say a word about it. Yet, they get up and they denounce 
lawlessness, and they won't even denounce lawlessness that comes right 
into the Congress and the Capitol of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to refrain 
from engaging in personalities toward presumptive nominees for the 
Office of President.
  Mr. DONALDS. Mr. Speaker, I find that we are at this point in the 
debate where my friend from Maryland has lost the debate because now he 
is going back talking about other things that are not about the merits 
of this bill.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I was about to comment 
that sooner or later you had to expect that the debate would be a rant 
about Donald Trump.
  Let's get back to the subject matter at hand perhaps. To clarify, 
since the point has been raised repeatedly and continues to be 
repeated, here is what the D.C. Council would be prohibited from doing: 
enact any act, resolution, or rule to change any criminal liability 
sentence in effect on the date of the enactment of the DC CRIMES Act of 
2024.
  Nothing would keep the D.C. Council from creating new crimes. Nothing 
whatsoever. In fact, they would not be able to increase crime 
sentences, existing sentences for crimes, but they sure haven't shown 
any inclination whatsoever to do that.
  The law professor from Maryland also made another elementary mistake 
in his recitation of the facts. As they said in law school, you have 
got to know the facts. He said that ``crime is down 16 percent in the 
past year in D.C.''
  Look a little closer. Go to the website MPDC.DC.gov. That is the 
website for the Metropolitan Police Department. That reduction in crime 
that was cited, that is only for this year to date. Go look at last 
year, 2023. In that situation: homicide, up 35 percent; robbery, up 67 
percent; violent crime total, up 39 percent, et cetera. Across the 
board, all crime totaled up 26 percent, just last year.
  I know it is out of memory now because we are into the first few 
months of the next year, but it hasn't gone away. The victims haven't 
gone away.

                              {time}  1700

  Here is what the gentleman from Maryland said, the law professor, 
that Thomas Jefferson would understand, but the Constitution that 
Thomas Jefferson signed said: ``[The Congress shall have power . . . ] 
to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such 
District (not exceeding 10 miles square) as may, by cession of 
particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of 
government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over 
all places purchased . . . ''
  That is pretty clear. It is not only the question of the interests of 
the roughly 700,000 D.C. citizens; it is the 19 million Americans who 
come to the seat of government every year and are threatened by the 
recklessness of the D.C. Council.
  A moment's refresher about how we got to this place: The D.C. 
Council's radical rewrite of the entire criminal law that was reversed 
by H.J. Res. 26, which 31 Democrats voted to disapprove along with the 
majority, two Democrats from my home State, and eight Democrats 
couldn't bring themselves to vote. The rest of the extreme Democrats 
voted to stay out of the way, let them do what they wanted to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DONALDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the Senate voted to 
disapprove, 81-14, and the President of the United States, Joe Biden, 
faithful Democrat, signed the legislation even though many extreme 
Democrats supported the D.C. Council's reckless action.
  Then the other matter, H.J. Res. 42, to disapprove the 
``Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022,'' 
which Mayor Bowser also vetoed, and they overrode her veto.
  They did all kinds of stuff to leave police officers at the tender 
mercies. They require juries to consider if officers consulted mental 
health, behavioral health, or social workers before using deadly force; 
imposed approval hurdles for the use of riot gear and nonlethal 
munitions necessary to protect officers; eliminated officers and union 
representatives from police complaint boards, restricted officers from 
using body cam footage in preparing reports, et cetera, et cetera, et 
cetera.
  It is sheer recklessness, and it should be changed, and the way to 
change it is for Congress to take back the authority over criminal 
sentencing.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
thank the gentleman for pointing out that I accurately cited the 
statistics for all of the declines in crime and violent crime and 
homicides in the District of Columbia in 2024.
  Alas, I do have to correct my friend in his history because there 
might be some students watching this. Thomas Jefferson never signed the 
Constitution. He was, of course, on a diplomatic mission when the 
Constitution was being signed in Philadelphia, but he did write the 
Declaration of Independence.
  The other side says, bizarrely, that the District of Columbia Council 
and the Mayor should be denied the authority to increase criminal 
sentences forthwith because they have shown no inclination to increase 
criminal sentences.
  Leaving aside the absolute illogic of the argument, it is also false 
because the District of Columbia in the secure D.C. act, passed just 2 
months ago, increased criminal sentences across the board, which I am 
afraid my friends were completely oblivious to when they started this 
legislation. They weren't aware of it.
  The people who claim to be speaking for the populous of Washington, 
D.C., didn't know that the Council had just acted to dramatically 
increase criminal penalties in the city. They denied them the right to 
further increase criminal penalties in the city because they say they 
haven't shown any inclination to do so which, of course, makes no sense 
and is also completely false.
  All of this is pure political theater. It is bad political theater. 
Somebody decided a long time ago that it works for people who would 
never try to kick around their own State legislatures, their own county 
councils, or their own city councils to kick around the people of 
Washington, D.C.
  My friends think that they have scored some kind of huge rhetorical 
coup, pointing out Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, 
which indeed says that Congress shall exercise exclusive legislation 
over the District, constituting the seat of government from land that 
is ceded by various States.
  Nobody on this side of the aisle, including the distinguished 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, has denied that for a 
second.
  What we have said is this is a massive assault on home rule, and it 
is also an embarrassing one because it cuts completely against all of 
the rhetoric that we are hearing from our colleagues across the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DONALDS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am 
prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 7 minutes 
remaining.

[[Page H3250]]

  

  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we have made some progress in this conversation 
because a plain reading of the distinguished gentleman from Florida's 
legislation indicates that what he is telling the District of Columbia 
is you may never increase criminal penalties again. The only time there 
can be an increase in criminal penalties in the District of Columbia is 
if Congress does it.
  Unfortunately, this Congress has a hard time even keeping a Speaker 
in place without them trying to vacate the chair and topple the 
Speaker.
  This Congress, as the whole country knows, has been absolute chaos 
and dysfunction and disorganization from the beginning.
  I don't blame the people from Washington, D.C., who sent us these 
letters; the Mayor, the Council, and the Attorney General of D.C. 
saying thanks, but no thanks. We will take it from here.
  The people in D.C. are perfectly able to decide what criminal 
offenses they need in the District of Columbia and how the sentences 
should be set and fixed.
  They have courts in the District of Columbia, they have a 
legislature, the Council for the District of Columbia, which is elected 
from their eight wards and four at-large members and the chairman of 
the Council, and they have a Mayor. They have advisory neighborhood 
commissions.
  I wonder if any of my colleagues over there are active in any of the 
wards or advisory neighborhood commissions where they live. I tend to 
doubt it.
  The people of D.C., I understand from Congresswoman Norton, are 
actually involved in the governance of their city and the management of 
their local affairs.
  Yet, in this totally ham-handed and almost comically dysfunctional 
attempt to score points against D.C., they come up with legislation 
which says D.C. can never increase criminal penalties, again, when they 
are accusing D.C. of being too soft on crime, despite the fact that we 
are able to show that D.C. has tougher criminal sentences than many of 
the States represented by the Members who have been speaking about this 
over the last several days.
  All of it feels a lot, to me, like a silly election-year stunt. I 
don't think anyone thinks that this is serious legislation, but I am 
glad at least that the other side has conceded that the bill means what 
it says.
  They want to strip the District of Columbia of any power to increase 
criminal sentences in their city. I simply think that that is a 
terrible form of public policy and is a major inroad against home rule 
over the last several decades when, in fact, what we should be doing is 
giving the people of D.C. greater political self-government and giving 
them the rights to equal representation which, of course, was the 
aforementioned Jefferson's ideal for the country.
  If you go back and read the Northwest Ordinance, he thought that 
every part of the country would eventually attain a level of political 
equality by admission to Statehood through Article IV of the 
Constitution.
  That is the spirit of the Constitution, not kicking around people, 
our fellow citizens, because we think we have more power than them, and 
we can score some political points off them.
  Why don't we have a hearing about Statehood for the District of 
Columbia, and let's keep the engines of democracy, freedom, and 
political equality in the country moving.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DONALDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The 
District of Columbia thinks that you are to be tried as a minor if you 
are 23 years of age. Nowhere else in the United States does that 
exist--nowhere--except in the District of Columbia. The District of 
Columbia Council has been derelict in its duty to actually provide for 
safety and security for the residents of the District of Columbia and 
the 19 million-plus Americans who come to the Federal enclave to visit 
the Nation's Capital.
  For all the talk of political points that have been made in this 
debate, that has only come from my friend on the other side of the 
aisle.
  He has talked about everything from President Trump to political 
talking points to political futures. He has talked very little about 
the reality that exists here in the Nation's Capital.
  It doesn't take much for anybody to just see, whether it is on the 
nightly news, or frankly, just walking down the streets somewhere in 
the District of Columbia that something has gone very, very wrong.
  Even here in this very building, Members and their staffs have 
experienced that. Our colleague from Minnesota (Ms. Craig) was 
assaulted in an elevator in her own apartment building.
  Our colleague on the other side of this building, Senator Paul, his 
staffer was stabbed when walking home from work.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), a Democrat Member of this 
Chamber, he was robbed and carjacked with guns pointed at his head 
blocks away from the United States Capitol.
  You see, Mr. Speaker, these are not political talking points. This is 
real life. It is easy for the Members to come in and out of this 
building when we have security apparatus around us every single day but 
not take seriously what is happening in the streets of the Nation's 
Capital. This legislation takes that seriously.
  I will end with this: It is not a time for election-year stunts. I 
agree with that 100 percent, which is why this legislation is about 
having structural reforms to what has happened in the District of 
Columbia.
  This is why the age for being tried as a minor is being decreased to 
under the age of 18, which mirrors what happens in every other part of 
the United States and should also occur here in the Nation's Capital.
  This is a good piece of legislation. I encourage Members on both 
sides of the aisle to vote for this. We have a responsibility to 
provide for a safe Washington, D.C., that the citizens can enjoy and 
that the people of the United States can enjoy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1227, the previous question is ordered 
on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill 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 bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DONALDS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage of H.R. 7530 will be followed by either 5-minute 
or 2-minute votes on:
  Adoption of House Resolution 1210;
  Passage of H.R. 7581;
  Passage of H.R. 7343; and
  Motions to suspend the rules and pass:
  H.R. 4510;
  H.R. 4310;
  H.R. 4581;
  H.R. 6960;
  H.R. 1797;
  H.R. 6572;
  H.R. 6571; and
  H.R. 3950.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 181, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 201]

                               YEAS--225

     Aderholt
     Alford
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Bean (FL)
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brecheen
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Burlison
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Caraveo
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Collins
     Comer
     Correa
     Craig
     Crane
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Curtis
     D'Esposito
     Davidson
     Davis (NC)
     De La Cruz
     DesJarlais
     Donalds
     Duarte
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Edwards
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes

[[Page H3251]]


     Ezell
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flood
     Foxx
     Franklin, Scott
     Fry
     Fulcher
     Gallego
     Garbarino
     Garcia, Mike
     Gimenez
     Golden (ME)
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hageman
     Harder (CA)
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Houchin
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunt
     Issa
     Jackson (TX)
     James
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (PA)
     Kaptur
     Kean (NJ)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kiggans (VA)
     Kiley
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaLota
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Langworthy
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lawler
     Lee (FL)
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Luna
     Luttrell
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Maloy
     Mann
     Mast
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCormick
     McHenry
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (OH)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Mills
     Molinaro
     Moolenaar
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Moran
     Moskowitz
     Murphy
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norcross
     Norman
     Nunn (IA)
     Obernolte
     Ogles
     Owens
     Palmer
     Panetta
     Peltola
     Pence
     Perez
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Ryan
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schrier
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Self
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Sorensen
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Strong
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Van Orden
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (NY)
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yakym
     Zinke

                               NAYS--181

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amo
     Auchincloss
     Balint
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bowman
     Brown
     Brownley
     Budzinski
     Bush
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Casar
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crockett
     Crow
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (IL)
     Dean (PA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deluzio
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Foushee
     Frankel, Lois
     Frost
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Garcia, Robert
     Goldman (NY)
     Gomez
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Hayes
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hoyle (OR)
     Huffman
     Ivey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson (NC)
     Jacobs
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kamlager-Dove
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Landsman
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Lee (PA)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McClellan
     McCollum
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Nickel
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Quigley
     Ramirez
     Raskin
     Ross
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Salinas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scholten
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Sykes
     Takano
     Thanedar
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tokuda
     Tonko
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Vasquez
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wild
     Williams (GA)

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Barr
     Boyle (PA)
     Ciscomani
     Cleaver
     Diaz-Balart
     Evans
     Gaetz
     Good (VA)
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Jackson Lee
     Joyce (OH)
     Kim (NJ)
     Magaziner
     Massie
     McClain
     Meng
     Mooney
     Pettersen
     Sherrill
     Torres (CA)
     Trone
     Wexton
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1743

  Ms. McCOLLUM changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________