[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.
____________________