[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 151 (Tuesday, September 16, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H4333-H4339]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DC CRIMINAL REFORMS TO IMMEDIATELY MAKE EVERYONE SAFE ACT
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 707, I call up
the bill (H.R. 4922) 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 (Mr. Tiffany). Pursuant to House Resolution
707, the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text
of Rules Committee Print 119-10 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is
considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 4922
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 2025'' or the ``DC
CRIMES Act of 2025''.
SEC. 2. YOUTH OFFENDERS.
(a) Limiting Youth Offender Status in District of Columbia
to Individuals Under 18 Years of Age.--
(1) Limitation.--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
``under 18 years of age''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Repeal of 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).
(B) 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 age''.
(b) Prohibiting Issuance of Sentence Less Than Mandatory-
minimum Term.--Section 4(b) of such Act (sec. 24-903(b), D.C.
Official Code) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(b)(1)'' and inserting ``(b)'';
(2) by striking paragraph (2); and
(3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
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.
``(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-2) 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.
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 Government Reform or their
respective designees.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Garcia) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
General Leave
Mr. COMER. 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 Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 4922, a bill providing commonsense
reforms to the District of Columbia criminal code.
It is clear to Members of the committee and the public that D.C.'s
soft-on-crime policies have failed to keep D.C. residents and visitors
safe.
[[Page H4334]]
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 emphasize Washington, D.C.'s current law. 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. It also removes
judicial discretion to sentence youth offenders under the minimum
sentencing structures in place.
Our Capital cannot continue to let criminals freely roam the streets
and expect this crime crisis to end.
As juvenile crime soars in the District, the bill also requires the
D.C. Attorney General to create a publicly available website that
better tracks juvenile crime data. This data will inform Congress, the
District's elected officials, the Metropolitan Police Department, the
public, and others of the severity of juvenile crimes in the city.
Citizens of D.C. and visitors to our Nation's Capital deserve to feel
safe.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds) for
leading this effort again in this Congress, and I encourage my
colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, we are considering today the
first of four bills which represent a serious violation of the rights
of Washington, D.C., and the democratic process.
Mr. Speaker, we know that D.C. has more residents than two States;
D.C. taxpayers pay more Federal taxes per capita than any State; and
D.C., as a whole, contributes more Federal taxes than 12 States. There
are over 700,000 active residents here who deserve a voice.
D.C.'s government is accountable to the people who live here, and
local leaders should and are empowered to solve local problems without
Congress interfering.
Mr. Speaker, I have said this many times: If Donald Trump wants to
run D.C., he should resign as President and run for Mayor. If my
colleagues here want to legislate for D.C., there are plenty of
opportunities to run for the D.C. Council.
Mr. Speaker, I was a mayor of my city for 8 years before I came to
Congress, and I love local government. A lot can get done and
accomplished. Yet, let's not sit here in Congress and pretend to be a
super city council, imposing our pet policies on residents who reject
this agenda.
{time} 1510
Now, the bill before us right now is the so-called DC CRIMES Act.
This bill will impose longer sentences on young people who commit
crimes.
How does it do this?
It eliminates the ability for judges to make the best sentencing
decisions for young adults. It will lead to worse outcomes, more
reoffenders, and less safety.
Now, let's be clear: This bill is not about making anyone safer or
D.C. safer. It is about stripping decisionmaking away from the people
and the judges of D.C., and instead handing the power of judges over to
politicians in this room who don't live here, who don't vote here, and
certainly don't answer to D.C. residents.
This bill amends D.C.'s Youth Rehabilitation Act, or the YRA as it is
known.
Now, the YRA is not radical. It has been in place since 1985, and it
actually mirrors laws in States like Florida and Michigan. Its purpose
is simple: to give judges discretion in sentencing young adults.
Now, judges can punish some young people, when appropriate, in ways
that reduce their risk of reoffending, but this bill would rip away
discretion.
It eliminates a judge's ability to waive mandatory minimums, even
when the facts show a one-size-fits-all sentence makes no sense.
Judges, not politicians, should decide sentences. Now, individuals
whose convictions are set aside under the YRA are less likely to
reoffend. That means the law works, and it keeps communities safer.
Now, we also know that in nearly 80 percent of cases, judges impose a
mandatory minimum sentence anyway. These waivers are rarely granted and
only when a judge determines it is appropriate. This bill is an
undemocratic attack on D.C., its residents, and is also just bad
policy.
Now, Republicans in the majority claim D.C.'s policies are too soft,
but we know that the sponsor of this bill is also from Florida, which
has allowed judges to waive mandatory minimums for decades.
Florida even caps youth offender sentences at 6 years, something
D.C., by the way, has never done. Let's be clear: We can all agree that
violent crime has no place in our communities. People are rightly
concerned about crime in D.C. and back home in their communities.
Democrats, of course, want safe streets, but we believe in investing in
solutions that actually make people safer, not political stunts or
short-term gimmicks or cheap tough talk.
We know what works: supporting local police departments, investing in
community-based partnerships, and creating economic opportunity to
drive down shootings, homicides, and burglaries.
Now, getting guns out of the hands of violent criminals keeps us all
safer. Instead of doing that work, Republicans are wasting time
attacking the District while ignoring the crises in their own
backyards.
Now, President Trump is doing nothing to address violent crime in
States with some of the highest crime rates in the country. In fact,
his administration has made things worse.
Trump has opposed efforts to expand criminal background checks. He
has blocked attempts to reduce ghost guns and machine gun conversion
devices. His Department of Justice has gutted the number of inspectors
who stop businesses from selling guns to criminals, cutting that
workforce down by two-thirds.
On top of that, Trump illegally froze or canceled $3.8 billion in DOJ
grant programs, including COPS grants for our police departments that,
of course, help communities hire and train police officers.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided power
grab, and I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Donalds), sponsor of the bill.
Mr. DONALDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my bill,
H.R. 4922, the DC CRIMES Act.
Now, in reference to what the gentleman was just talking about,
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution is
quite clear. It grants Congress the power to exercise exclusive,
exclusive jurisdiction over the Federal District, which all Americans
know now is Washington, D.C., and it is the Nation's Capital.
That is in the Constitution that was ratified by several States.
Congress does have the constitutional authority to regulate activities
within the Federal District. When it is said that somehow Congress is
now eroding local control, that is simply not true.
Any local powers by the D.C. Council have been granted to the D.C.
Council by Congress, and Congress is the seat of authority when it
comes to the Federal enclave.
He also talked about Florida's laws. Let's be very clear: Florida has
established itself as a beacon of law and order, making sure that our
citizens are safe throughout all of our jurisdictions. If there are
some abilities for some measures of flexibility, Florida has proven,
beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it knows how to keep its people safe,
which is very different with respect to the D.C. Council and with
respect to escalated crime here in the Nation's Capital.
Our great Nation's Capital has been plagued by violence, destruction,
disorder for far too long, and decades of weak, pro-crime leadership
has turned this once great city into a dystopia.
I will remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that some
of their colleagues have been victimized by the crime here in
Washington, D.C. Rather than prioritizing the safety of law-abiding
citizens and protecting the lives of innocent residents and visitors,
District officials have actively facilitated dysfunction and chaos
through
[[Page H4335]]
their progressive, soft-on-crime policies.
Instead of addressing the clear epidemic of youth crime in this city,
the D.C. Council increased the age of youth offenders to individuals 24
years old and younger. Meaning fully grown, legal adults in the
District of Columbia can receive sentences meant for children.
This is simply insane, and that is why I introduced the DC CRIMES
Act, which lowers the definition of youth from under the age of 25 to
under the age of 18, removes the ability of judges to sentence youth
offenders below mandatory minimum guidelines, and requires the D.C.
attorney general to establish a public website containing much-needed
statistics on juvenile crime in D.C.
The Trump administration's efforts have shown that lawlessness is a
choice, and it is time for Congress to step up, adhere to our
constitutional duty, and firmly address crime in the Nation's Capital.
For the citizens of D.C., I would say, we wish your Council did this
the right way, but they did not and we will act.
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton.)
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this undemocratic and paternalistic
bill, which amends D.C. law. The over 700,000 D.C. residents, the
majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable and worthy of
governing themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters opposing this bill from
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, the entire D.C. Council, and D.C. Attorney
General Brian Schwalb.
September 10, 2025.
Hon. James Comer,
Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Robert Garcia,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Garcia: As Mayor and
Chief Executive Officer of the District of Columbia, I am
proud of the work we have accomplished to invest in our
people, strengthen our neighborhoods, and drive down crime.
Building on this progress, my Administration established the
Safe and Beautiful Emergency Operations Center to coordinate
public safety and beautification efforts as the presidential
emergency declaration ends. This structure ensures that DC
will remain proactive--bringing together local and federal
partners to sustain momentum on reducing crime and improving
quality of life for every resident.
We have worked collaboratively with this Committee on
shared priorities, including public safety, the federal
Return to Work, implementing a DC budget Fiscal Year 2025 fix
(which is still pending in the House) and revitalizing the
RFK campus; but I write now to ask you to reject 13 of the DC
bills before you today that encroach on DC's Home Rule:
Bills like H.R. 5183, the District of Columbia Home Rule
Improvement Act, make the District less efficient,
competitive, and responsive to the needs of a highly complex
unique local government that serves local, county and state
functions. Bogging down legislative and executive action only
adds costs and uncertainty, making it more difficult to
handle the economic headwinds and growth opportunities ahead.
Bills like H.R. 5214, the District of Columbia Cash Bail
Reform Act, make DC less safe. Replacing our very effective
pre-trial detention regime, which focuses on charged violent
offenses and repeat violent offenders, not just on cash bail.
I credit recent changes to our laws related to pre-trial
detention for helping to drive down violent crime in the last
two years.
And the bills to abolish the Judicial Nominations
Commission and to convert the elected DC Attorney General to
a Presidentially appointed legal officer for the District are
both less democratic and untenable for District operations.
The Judicial Nomination Commission, with seven members
appointed by the Mayor, DC Council, President, US District
Court for DC, and the DC Bar, works. As recently as last
month, President Trump nominated three federal judicial
nominees who were selected from the Commission's candidate
pool--a process that demonstrates the value of maintaining
local input. DC residents also voted to elect an Attorney
General who represents the public interest. Changes to these
charter agencies would significantly undercut the already
thin ties to autonomy that limited home rule provides.
Finally, I urge you not to up end our three-part education
funding SOAR Act. I have long supported the program to expand
opportunity for DC students. However, my support has always
been contingent on parity among all three education sectors--
public, private, and charter--and this approach is working.
We will not support changes that tip the scales away from
this core principle of fairness for DC families. As the
fastest improving urban school system, DC has become a model
for urban education. We outpace the national average on all
tested subject areas. We boast free, full-day Pre-K access
serving more than 13,200 young learners--an investment which
supports our children and our workforce. DC ranked top of the
nation in parental satisfaction regarding school choice.
Mayoral control, council oversight, and deep, targeted
investments in our students, teachers, and buildings made
these remarkable achievements possible.
I look forward to continuing a productive partnership with
the Committee--one that respects the will of DC residents and
honors the principles of home rule. Together, we can build on
our successes while protecting the autonomy that, as history
reflects, has made our city stronger.
Sincerely,
Muriel Bowser,
Mayor.
____
Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the
Attorney General
Washington, DC, September 9, 2025.
Hon. James Comer,
Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Robert Garcia,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Garcia: The House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is scheduled to
markup fourteen bills tomorrow related to the operations of
the District of Columbia. With the exception of H.R. 2693,
the District of Columbia Electronic Transmittal Act, I write
in strong opposition to these bills. They address inherently
local issues and laws that were passed after careful
consideration by the District's elected representatives, who
are directly accountable to District residents. Members of
this very Committee have long advocated for the principles of
federalism on which this nation was founded. They have
consistently condemned federal overreach and fought
forcefully and convincingly for the uniquely American values
of local control, freedom, and self-governance. These
principles should apply to the more than 700,000 people who
call Washington, DC home, just as they do for your
constituents across the country.
I specifically want to call attention to the significant
incursion on local self-governance reflected in two bills,
the District of Columbia Attorney General Appointment Reform
Act and the District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Reform
Act. Both laws would displace the ability of District
residents to have a voice in the selection of local leaders
who wield significant power over local judicial matters: the
judges on our local courts and the Attorney General for the
District. The judges on the DC Court of Appeals and DC
Superior Court rule on inherently local matters such as
criminal prosecutions, landlord-tenant cases, probate
proceedings, civil cases, and divorce proceedings, all of
which have profoundly important impact on our community. For
more than 50 years, the Judicial Nomination Commission (JNC)
has successfully allowed DC residents to have a voice in
judicial appointments, while also granting the President and
Senate a role in confirming our judges. I urge the Committee
not to overturn that well-established process.
The DC Attorney General, as the District's chief law
officer, is also responsible for local legal issues, namely,
protecting the District and its residents in a wide range of
matters, such as enforcing child support laws, handling abuse
and neglect proceedings in the child welfare system,
enforcing our housing code, and defending District agencies
and officers when they are sued. In no other place in the
United States are such local issues determined by a federally
appointed person with no local accountability. The proposed
legislation would be especially undemocratic in light of the
fact that, in 2010, an overwhelming majority of District
voters (76 percent) exercised their right to amend the
District Charter to make the DC Attorney General an
independent, elected office, rather than a position appointed
by and subordinate to the Mayor. With that vote, District
residents clearly expressed their desire that the Attorney
General should be independent and accountable to them. The
pending bill would displace that choice in favor of
installing an Attorney General accountable not to District
residents, but to the President. Given that the U.S. Attorney
for the District is already appointed by the President, if
passed, this bill would concentrate all criminal and civil
litigation authority in the President, divesting the District
and its residents of any local control over these essential
functions.
No one knows or cares more about keeping DC safe than DC
residents who work, live and raise their families here. Our
democratically elected officials work closely with local law
enforcement, policy experts, and community leadership to pass
laws that are in the best interests of all Washingtonians.
Substituting the will of DC voters with the whim of federal
politicians is undemocratic and un-American.
I urge you to reject these measures and uphold the values
Congress sought to advance more than 50 years ago when it
passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act: that
[[Page H4336]]
District residents should enjoy the ``powers of local self-
government'' that all other Americans enjoy. See DC Code
Sec. 1-201.02.
Respectfully submitted,
Brian L. Schwalb,
Attorney General for the District of Columbia.
____
Council of the District of Columbia,
Washington, DC, September 8, 2025.
Hon. James Comer,
Chair, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Robert Garcia,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Garcia: The Council
of the District of Columbia is aware that the House Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform is planning to mark up
more than a dozen proposed measures that would severely and
negatively impact the operations, public safety, and autonomy
of the District of Columbia. We ask that you oppose these
measures in full, save one, H.R. 2693, District of Columbia
Electronic Transmittal of Legislation Act. While we have not
seen the final text of this legislation, the public summary
of H.R. 2693 is consistent with the long held request by the
District of Columbia to allow the ability to electronically
transfer legislative acts to Congress, rather than only
allowing physical copies be transferred. The challenge and
barriers created by this current requirement were clearly
exposed during both the recent COVID pandemic restrictions as
well as the Capitol campus restrictions following the January
6, 2021 attacks on the Capitol.
The other 13 measures that have been shared with us would
do direct and serious harm to the District of Columbia and we
urge you to reject these measures completely. These bills
represent an unprecedented attack on the autonomy and home
rule of our local government and the more than 700,000
Americans that call it home. The breadth of these bills is
remarkable, and if passed, would result in an erosion of
accountability and public safety for the District of
Columbia. They range from eliminating and replacing our
elected and accountable Attorney General for the District of
Columbia with a President's hand-picked and unaccountable
associate requiring no confirmation by the U.S. Senate and no
local ties, to a full repeal of multiple local DC laws that
have been in place for many years, if not decades, that are
tested, proven, and effective components of our public safety
infrastructure and ecosystem. The effect of these
Congressional repeals would put our legal and Court system
into chaos and directly undermine successful tools that focus
on serious accountability and effective rehabilitation when a
crime occurs. As always, when revisions or amendments to DC
laws are necessary, those changes should only take place
within our local legislature which has the best capacity to
provide effective oversight and accountable actions for the
residents of the District of Columbia.
We respectfully request that all members of the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform, and all members of
Congress, reject these harmful measures whether in committee
mark up or before the full House of Representatives. Given
the breadth of the multiple measures before you, we also
request an opportunity to provide a more in-depth discussion
of each bill before the Committee's mark-up, especially in
light that the Committee will not hold public hearings on
these measures.
Sincerely,
Chairman Phil Mendleson; Councilmember Anita Bonds, At-
Large; Councilmember Robert White, Jr., At-Large;
Councilmember Brooke Pinto, Ward 2; Councilmember Janeese
Lewis George, Ward 4; Councilmember Charles Allen, Ward 6;
Councilmember Trayon White, Sr, Ward 8; Councilmember Kenyan
McDuffie, At-Large; Councilmember Christina Henderson, At-
Large; Councilmember Brianne Nadeau, Ward 1; Councilmember
Matthew Frumin, Ward 3; Councilmember Zachary Parker, Ward 5;
Councilmember Wendell Felder, Ward 7.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the local legislature, the Council, has 13
members. If D.C. residents do not like how members vote, residents can
vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure. That is called
democracy.
Congress has 535 voting Members. None are elected by D.C. residents.
If D.C. residents do not like how Members vote on local D.C. matters,
residents cannot vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure. That
is the antithesis of democracy.
The substance of this bill should be irrelevant since there is never
justification for Congress to legislate on local D.C. matters.
Nevertheless, I will discuss it.
Republicans claim D.C.'s Youth Rehabilitation Act treats adults as
juveniles. They are wrong. They either do not understand the act or are
misleading the public about it intentionally. The act's sentencing and
set aside provisions apply only in adult court, not juvenile court.
Let me repeat: The provisions apply in adult court, not juvenile
court. A judge may, but is not required to, sentence a person under the
act, and certain crimes are ineligible under the act.
{time} 1520
D.C. is not the only jurisdiction with 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
States.
D.C. residents have all the obligations of American citizenship,
including paying Federal taxes, serving on juries, and registering with
the Selective Service, yet Congress denies them full local self-
government and voting representation in Congress. The only solution to
this undemocratic treatment is to grant D.C. statehood.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter explaining why D.C.
statehood is constitutional from leading constitutional scholars,
including Larry Tribe.
May 22, 2021.
Re Washington, D.C. Admission Act, H.R. 51 and S. 51 (the
``D.C. Admission Act'').
Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles E. Schumer,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin O. McCarthy,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressional Leaders: As scholars of the United
States Constitution, we write to correct claims that the D.C.
Admission Act is vulnerable to a constitutional challenge in
the courts. For the reasons set forth below, there is no
constitutional barrier to the State of Washington, Douglass
Commonwealth (the ``Commonwealth'') entering the Union
through a congressional joint resolution, pursuant to the
Constitution's Admissions Clause, just like the 37 other
states that have been admitted since the Constitution was
adopted. Furthermore, Congress's exercise of its express
constitutional authority to decide to admit a new state is a
classic political question, which courts are highly unlikely
to interfere with, let alone attempt to bar.
The D.C. Admission Act. The House passed the Act, as H.R.
51, on April 22, 2021, and as of this writing, the
substantively identical companion bill (S. 51) is under
consideration by the Senate. The Act provides for the
issuance of a congressional joint resolution declaring the
admittance as a State of most of the territory currently
comprising the District of Columbia, while the seat of
government (defined as the ``Capital'') will fall outside of
the boundaries of the new State and remain under federal
jurisdiction. The Act also repeals the provision of federal
law that establishes the current mechanism for District
residents to participate in presidential elections, pursuant
to Congress's authority under the Twenty-Third Amendment; and
provides for expedited consideration of the repeal of that
Amendment.
The Admissions Clause grants Congress constitutional
authority to admit the Commonwealth into the Union. The
starting point for a constitutional analysis of the Act is
the Constitution's Admissions Clause (Art. IV, Sect. 3),
which provides that ``New States may be admitted by the
Congress into this Union.'' The Clause ``vests in Congress
the essential and discretionary authority to admit new states
into the Union by whatever means it considers appropriate as
long as such means are framed within its vested powers.''
Every State admitted into the Union since the Constitution
was adopted has been admitted by congressional action
pursuant to this Clause; no State has been admitted pursuant
to a constitutional amendment.
The Supreme Court has broadly construed Congress's assigned
power to admit new states and has never interfered with
Congress's admission of a state, even when potentially
legitimate constitutional objections existed. For example, in
1863, Congress admitted into the Union West Virginia, which
had been part of the State of Virginia, in potential
violation of a provision of the Admissions Clause that bars
the formation of a new State out of a portion of the
territory of another State without the consent of the ceding
State. The Supreme Court, however, did not bar West
Virginia's admission; to the contrary, it later tacitly
approved of it.
Some critics of the D.C. Admission Act have suggested that
Maryland's consent might be required under the foregoing
provision of the Admissions Clause. This objection mistakenly
presupposes that Maryland retains a reversionary interest in
the territory currently composing the District of Columbia,
which Maryland ceded to the federal government when the
District was established in 1791. In fact, Maryland expressly
relinquished all sovereign authority over the territory at
issue when the federal government accepted it. The express
terms of the cession state that the territory was ``for ever
ceded and relinquished to the congress and government of the
United States, in full and absolute right, and exclusive
jurisdiction.
[[Page H4337]]
. . . As Viet D. Dinh, who served as an Assistant Attorney
General during the presidency of George W. Bush, has
explained, because Maryland's cession of the territory now
constituting the District was full and complete, it severed
D.C. residents' now far distant ``political link with''
Maryland. The current District is not part of Maryland, and
Maryland has no claim on any portion of the District's
territory. There is accordingly no basis to require
Maryland's consent for the establishment of the new State.
The Constitution's District Clause poses no barrier to
admitting the Commonwealth into the Union. The Constitution's
District Clause grants Congress power to ``exercise exclusive
Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not
exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular
States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States.'' Based on this Clause,
Congress established the current District of Columbia, which
(as explained) was taken from territory ceded by Maryland, as
well as Virginia.
The D.C. Admission Act complies with the District Clause
because it provides that the Capital--which is defined in the
Act to include (among other things) the White House, the
Capitol Building, the United States Supreme Court Building,
and the Federal executive, legislative, and judicial office
buildings located adjacent to the Mall--will not become part
of the new State and will remain under the sovereignty of the
federal government.
Some critics have argued that the District Clause somehow
mandates that the District of Columbia permanently retain all
of its current territory, and that its size may neither be
increased or reduced by Congress. The plain language of the
District Clause says no such thing; it does not mandate that
the District be any size or shape, except it limits the
maximum size of the federal enclave to ten square miles.
Historical practice confirms that Congress can change the
size of the District. In 1791, Congress altered the
District's southern boundary to encompass portions of what
are now Alexandria, Virginia and Anacostia. Then, in 1846,
Congress retroceded Alexandria and its environs back to
Virginia. As a result, the territory composing the District
was reduced by a third.
At the time of the 1846 retrocession, the House's Committee
on the District of Columbia considered, and rejected, the
very argument that critics of the D.C. Admission Act are
raising today, reasoning that the ``true construction of [the
District Clause] would seem to be solely that Congress retain
and exercise exclusive jurisdiction'' over territory
comprising the ``seat of government.'' The language of the
District Clause, the legislators observed, places no mandate
on the size, or even the location, of that seat of
government, other than preventing the government from
``hold[ing] more than ten miles for this purpose.'' The
House's judgment was correct in 1846, and remains so today.
The Twenty-Third Amendment does not prevent Congress from
granting the Commonwealth statehood. Opponents of statehood
have suggested that the Twenty-Third Amendment bars Congress
from exercising its constitutionally enumerated authority to
grant statehood to the Commonwealth. In fact, the Amendment
poses no barrier to the admission of the Commonwealth into
the Union through an act of Congress, in accordance with the
plain language of the Admissions Clause, just as Congress has
done in connection with the admission of several other
States, including most recently Alaska and Hawaii.
Section 1 of the Twenty-Third Amendment, which was ratified
in 1961, provides:
The District constituting the seat of Government of the
United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress
may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice
President equal to the whole number of Senators and
Representatives in Congress to which the District would be
entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the
least populous State; they shall be in addition to those
appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for
the purposes of the election of President and Vice President,
to be electors appointed by a State.
By its plain terms, the Amendment poses no barrier to
Congress's admission of the Commonwealth into the Union.
Indeed, it is entirely silent on the matter.
The only question raised by the existence of the Twenty-
Third Amendment is a practical, not a constitutional one: How
best to address the Twenty-Third Amendment's provision for
the assignment of presidential electors to what will become a
vestigial seat of government, with virtually no residents?
The Act satisfactorily addresses this question by providing
for the repeal of the provision of federal law that
establishes the current mechanism for District residents to
participate in presidential elections, pursuant to Congress's
authority under the Twenty-Third Amendment, as well as by
commencing the process for repealing the Amendment itself.
Initially, the Act provides for an expedited process for
repeal of the Twenty-Third Amendment, a process that should
move forward to ratification swiftly and successfully once
the Commonwealth is admitted as a State. None of the other 50
States has reason to seek to retain three electors for a
largely unoccupied seat of government.
But the Act also addresses the possibility that the Twenty-
Third Amendment is not promptly repealed by mandating the
immediate repeal of the provision of federal law that
provides the current mechanism for District residents to
participate in federal elections.
In 1961, following the adoption of the Twenty-Third
Amendment, Congress exercised its enforcement authority by
enacting legislation (codified at 3 U.S.C. Sec. 21),
providing that the District residents may select presidential
electors; the votes of the electors are currently awarded to
the ticket prevailing in the District's presidential
election.
The existing statutes, fall within the broad authority
granted to Congress by the Twenty-Third Amendment to define
the terms of, and effectuate, the District's participation in
presidential elections. The Amendment allows for the
appointment of a number of Electors ``in such manner as the
Congress may direct.'' The Amendment also allows Congress to
select the number of Electors the District may receive,
subject only to a maximum: The District may participate in
the presidential Electoral College through the appointment of
no more electors than those of the smallest State, ie.,
three. And section 2 of the Amendment grants Congress the
power to ``enforce'' the provision ``by appropriate
legislation,'' as it did in 1961.
But once Congress acts again, pursuant to its express grant
of constitutional authority, and repeals the legislation that
creates the existing procedure for District residents to
select presidential electors, that will remove the
legislative provision providing for the District's
participation in presidential elections. Without such a
provision, there is no mechanism for identifying the Capital
area's electors or allocating their votes.
Some scholars have questioned whether that approach is
satisfactory. They contend that the Twenty-Third Amendment is
self-enforcing, and effectively mandates the appointment of
electors on behalf of the District of Columbia, regardless of
whether such appointment is called for under a federal
statute. Some of us disagree; indeed, the very existence of
Section 2 of the Amendment makes clear that enabling
legislation is required to effectuate the District's
participation in the presidential election process. And
Congress's 1961 enforcement legislation supports this
interpretation.
Even if this self-enforcement argument were to be accepted,
however, Congress could easily address it by replacing the
current law mandating that the Capital area's electors vote
in accordance with the outcome of the popular vote in the
District with a new legislative mandate that the Capital
area's electors vote in other ways. For example, Congress
could require District electors to vote in favor of the
presidential ticket that receives the most Electoral College
votes (of the remaining 538 electors). Or, alternatively,
Congress could require that District electors vote for the
winner of the national popular vote winner.
A recent Supreme Court decision confirms that a legislative
directive to the Capital area's electors would be
enforceable. The Twenty-Third Amendment provides that the
District ``shall appoint'' electors ``in such manner as
Congress may direct''; this language is a direct parallel to
the Constitution's grant of broad authority to each of the
States to appoint and instruct their respective electors. In
its recent decision in Chiafalo v. Washington, the Supreme
Court held that electors do not have discretion to decide how
to cast their Electoral College votes, but rather are legally
bound to follow the instructions given by their respective
states.
As Columbia Law School Professors Jessica Bulman-Pozen and
Olatunde Johnson have observed, it follows from the Court's
holding in Chiafalo that Congress could legally bind any
electors to vote in accordance with the overall vote of the
Electoral College or the national popular vote, just as the
existing enabling statute currently binds them to vote in the
Electoral College in accordance with the outcome of the
popular vote in the District.
In sum, none of the critics' constitutional objections to
the D.C. Admission Act are meritorious; and the contention
that a constitutional amendment is required to admit the
Commonwealth into the Union is incorrect. The D.C. Admission
Act calls for a proper exercise of Congress' express
authority under the Constitution to admit new states, a power
that it has exercised 37 other times since the Constitution
was adopted.
Courts are unlikely to second-guess Congress's exercise of
its constitutional authority to admit the Commonwealth into
the Union. Apart from the fact that the legal objections to
admission of the Commonwealth as a State are without merit,
it is also unlikely that the courts will ever consider those
objections. As Mr. Dinh has observed, the decision whether to
admit a state into the Union is a paradigmatic political
question that the Constitution expressly and exclusively
assigns to Congress. The Supreme Court has long, and
strenuously, avoided adjudicating disputes respecting matters
that the Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the
coordinate, elected branches.
The remaining objections to Statehood do not concern
applicable constitutional law, but rather matters of policy.
For example, some have argued that the District should not
be admitted to the Union because it is a single city and have
instead proposed that most of the District's territory be
retrocessioned to Maryland. There is, however, no
constitutional barrier to a large, diverse city, with a
population comparable
[[Page H4338]]
to that of several existing States, joining the Union.
Furthermore, the Maryland retrocession proposal is subject to
many of the same supposed constitutional objections raised by
those who object to statehood for the District. For example,
retroceding the District to Maryland would decrease the size
of the remaining federal enclave, which objectors to District
Statehood have claimed is constitutionally impermissible. A
forced merger of the District and Maryland would also do
nothing to address the purported constitutional objection to
leaving the residual seat of government with three potential
electors, pursuant to the terms of the Twenty-Third
Amendment, prior to the Amendment's repeal.
Opponents also argue that Congress should not grant the
District statehood because it will lead to a lawsuit. But any
court challenge will be without merit, and indeed likely will
be dismissed as presenting a political question. We
respectfully submit that Congress should not avoid exercising
its express constitutional authority to admit the
Commonwealth into the Union because of meritless threats of
litigation.
Sincerely yours,
Caroline Fredrickson, Georgetown University Law Center;
Erwin Chemerinsky, University of California, Berkeley School
of Law; Stephen I. Vladeck, University of Texas Law School;
Franita Tolson, University of Southern California, Gould
School of Law; Jessica Bulman-Pozen, Columbia Law School;
Leah Litman, University of Michigan Law School; Laurence H.
Tribe, Harvard Law School; Paul Smith, Georgetown University
Law Center; Geoffrey R. Stone, University of Chicago Law
School; Peter Edelman, Georgetown University Law Center,
Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law
School; Eric Segall, Georgia State College Law; Trevor
Potter, Campaign Legal Center; Gregory P. Downs, University
of California Davis; Larry Sabato, University of Virginia;
Aziz Huq, University of Chicago Law School; Jennifer
Hochschild, Harvard University; Neil S. Siegel, Duke
University School of Law; Beau Breslin, Skidmore College;
David C. Vladeck, Georgetown University Law Center; Sanford
Levinson, University of Texas at Austin School of Law; Ira C.
Lupu, George Washington University Law School; Peter M.
Shane, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law; Ira P.
Robbins, American University Washington College of Law;
Michael Greenberger, University of Maryland Francis King
Carey School of Law.
David Pozen, Columbia Law School; Mark Tushnet, Harvard Law
School; Michael C. Dorf, Cornell Law School; Miguel Schor,
Drake University School of Law; David S. Schwartz, University
of Wisconsin Law School; Caroline Mala Corbin, University of
Miami School of Law; Jonathan Askin, Brooklyn Law School;
Aziz Rana, Cornell Law School; John Mikhail, Georgetown
University Law Center; Richard Ford, Stanford Law School;
Richard Primus, University of Michigan Law School; Joseph
Fishkin, University of Texas Law School; Kate Masur,
Northwestern University; Chris Edelson, American University.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the D.C. statehood bill, H.R. 51, the
Washington, D.C. Admission Act, grants D.C. residents full local self-
government and voting representation in Congress. H.R. 51 reduces the
size of the Federal district from 68 square miles to 2 square miles,
consisting of the White House, Capitol, the Supreme Court, and The
National Mall and remaining under the control of Congress. The new
State consists of the residential and commercial areas of D.C. The new
State has a larger population than two States, pays more Federal taxes
per capita than any State, and pays more total Federal taxes than 21
States.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the D.C. CRIMES Act,
keep their hands off D.C. and free D.C.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the D.C. CRIMES Act,
legislation that builds on the extraordinary progress we have seen
under President Trump's leadership to restore law and order in
Washington, D.C.
Thanks to President Trump and his administration, we are finally
seeing real results in this city. Crime is down, homicides are down,
carjackings are down, and most importantly, people feel safer in their
Nation's Capital.
President Trump has handed us the blueprint to restore safety in
America's cities. Families are safely going out to restaurants,
businesses are seeing life return to their neighborhoods, and tourists
feel secure, knowing law enforcement officers are empowered to do their
job and enforce the law.
The D.C. CRIMES Act ensures that the gains we have made are not
rolled back by more Democratic pro-crime policies. Republicans are the
party of safe cities. We are the party that stands with our police and
responds to our communities that demand law and order.
This bill sends a simple message: Criminals will be held accountable,
victims will be protected, and Washington, D.C., will remain on the
path to becoming the safe, thriving Capital our Nation deserves.
I urge my colleagues to support the D.C. CRIMES Act and keep our
Capital safe, strong, and beautiful.
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Crockett).
Ms. CROCKETT. Mr. Speaker, as I sat and listened to the beginning of
this debate, my heart simply broke, and many people know me for being
able to do alliterations, and all I could think about was: Amnesia
allows adolescents accountability avoidance agility from across the
aisle.
Work with me for a second. Imagine being a young man born to Jamaican
and Panamanian parents who messed up not once but twice. Imagine
standing in front of a judge with your whole future hanging in the
balance. Instead of prison, you are given a promise of mercy. Your
record gets wiped clean, and you get a second chance at life.
Now imagine taking that promise and turning it into promotion. You go
to college. You get a job and even become a Member of Congress. That is
what redemption looks like. That is what America is supposed to be
about, and that is exactly the story of the next wannabe Governor from
Florida.
As a young man, he went through pretrial diversion for misdemeanor
marijuana possession. As an adult, yet younger than 24, he was charged
with and ultimately placed on probation for felony bribery charges,
which ultimately were, too, expunged.
He was given a third chance, and now he is the face of a bill that
would not afford young people in Washington, D.C., the same
opportunities afforded to him.
Let me be real. If he had grown up under Donald Trump's America or
under the very D.C. crime bill he is pushing today, he wouldn't be
standing here as a Member of Congress. He would still be living with
the weight of those charges.
Let's call this what it is: Opportunities for me, but not for thee.
He climbed the ladder of redemption, and now he is yanking it right up
from under D.C. youth. Most of us were taught to lift as you climb, but
clearly some have forgotten to lift as they climb. Now they are
committed to telling the next generations to pull themselves up by
their bootstraps.
I will not sit quiet while a man who was saved by grace turns around
and tries to snatch grace away from others.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute
to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. CROCKETT. If we are going to be real about crime, about
communities, about second chances and even third chances, then it needs
to start with us looking in the mirror and remembering that even the
author of this bill has a story, too, before he tries to lecture D.C.
on safety.
It would be complete hypocrisy to have, hypothetically, someone
convicted of 34 felonies to lecture D.C. on what to do with youthful
offenders who have been scientifically shown not to have fully
developed brains under the age of 25, especially if said multi-count
convicted felon was in his seventies when he was convicted. What would
be his excuse since his brain would be fully developed?
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett).
Mr. BURCHETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in disbelief over the fact
that in our own Nation's Capital, prosecutors are allowed to prosecute
criminals as old as 25 years old as minors.
While President Trump has restored law and order to the District, I
am not surprised that D.C.'s local government continues to protect the
criminals and ignore victims. The D.C. CRIMES Act puts an end to this
madness and ensures safety and security across D.C.
At 18 years old, you are given adult responsibilities, like being
able to vote or sign up for the military. At 18 years, you become
responsible for your
[[Page H4339]]
choices and your decisions and should be treated as such. At 21 years
old, you are able to legally consume alcohol. At 25 years old, you can
become a Member of Congress.
This is why the D.C. CRIMES Act is essential to ensuring the long-
term safety and security of our Nation's Capital so that violent
offenders are not just handed any more get-out-of-jail-free cards. The
bill also orders judges to stop sentencing youth offenders below the
minimum sentencing guidelines.
It is time to bring back justice in America. It is time for fair
punishment for the people who interfere with people's daily lives,
specifically those with prior convictions. The revolving door of
justice ends today. I cannot thank Representative Donalds enough for
his vital work on this legislation.
It is time to push back against soft-on-crime judges and DAs. We are
a nation of laws, Mr. Speaker, and Washington, D.C., should be a model
for justice across our great Nation.
In no way, shape, form, or fashion should we be charging adults as
minors and allowing them to return to commit similar or more violent
crimes. The citizens, tourists, businesspeople, and every other member
of this city deserve safety and security. I urge my colleagues to
support this bill, which will ensure just that.
We will restore D.C. to become the shining city on the hill that our
Founders envisioned it to be. I again thank my dear friend Congressman
Donalds. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert).
Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Comer and the free State
of Florida's next Governor, Byron Donalds, for introducing this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4922, the D.C. CRIMES Act,
which is sponsored by Congressman Donalds. This critical legislation is
a direct response to the failed pro-crime policies that have turned our
Nation's Capital into a war zone.
Under failing leftist policies, Washington, D.C., has seen an
epidemic of violence: carjackings surging 300 percent, homicides
ravaging communities, and young thugs, some as old as 24, treated as
juveniles, slapped with lenient sentences below mandatory minimums.
{time} 1530
It endangers young families and small businesses struggling in this
crime-ridden city. Innocent residents live in fear, while criminals
roam free, mocking the rule of law.
H.R. 4922 cuts through this madness. It ensures adults face adult
consequences. It repeals judges' abilities to dodge mandatory minimums
for youth crimes. Crucially, it blocks the D.C. Council from gutting
sentencing laws, reclaiming Congress' constitutional oversight over
this Federal District, as it should be.
As President Trump declared in his March 2025 executive order, if
D.C. won't act, we must, restoring order, beauty, and safety to our
Capital.
This bill isn't about politics. It is about protecting lives.
Republicans are delivering real reform, tougher accountability,
transparent juvenile crime data via a public website, and a safer D.C.
for all.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us and pass H.R. 4922 now
to make America and this District safe again.
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).
Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4922 so that we
may redefine what is considered to be a youth offender from 24 years to
18 years and repeal the D.C. criminal court provision that allows
youthful offenders to receive sentences less than the mandatory minimum
required by law.
There is no question that there has been a crime epidemic across the
District of Columbia, and the citizens of this great city deserve
better. President Trump recognized this fact and has exercised his
authority to restore safety. It is now time for Congress to build on
his good work.
H.R. 4922 is designed to begin to address many of the problems that
stem from the D.C. courts and their refusal to hold criminals
accountable. We need to start with recognizing that 19- to 24-year-olds
shouldn't be treated as youthful offenders.
Local news has recently reported that the number of juveniles
arrested in Washington, D.C., has increased every year since 2020 and
that 60 percent of carjackings in the District in 2025 so far are for
those over 20 years old.
Knowing that the District of Columbia currently classifies anyone 24
years or younger as a youth offender, it is fair to ask how many of
these so-called youthful offenders running rampant, terrorizing the
hardworking people of Washington, D.C., are actually adults and should
be tried as such. The situation is untenable and should not be
tolerated in a civilized society.
I am, therefore, pleased to support the solutions presented by H.R.
4922, including the establishment of a website on District of
Columbia's juvenile crime statistics.
Passage of this bill will go a long way to correcting the broken,
soft-on-crime policies here in Washington, D.C., that coddle criminals
and place at risk the good, honest, and hardworking people who call the
District home.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Donalds for sponsoring this
important legislation and applaud Chairman Comer for his steadfast
leadership on this critically important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting
H.R. 4922.
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I oppose passage of this bill,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this
commonsense legislation to ensure that citizens of Washington, D.C.,
and the many visitors to our Nation's Capital feel safe.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 707, 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. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________