[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 151 (Tuesday, September 16, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H4339-H4345]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LOWERING AGE AT WHICH A MINOR MAY BE TRIED AS ADULT FOR CERTAIN
CRIMINAL OFFENSES IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 707, I call up
the bill (H.R. 5140) to lower the age at which a minor may be tried as
an adult for certain criminal offenses in the District of Columbia to
14 years of age, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 707, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 119-12, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is
considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 5140
Be it enacted by the Seante and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled.
SECTION 1. LOWERING AGE AT WHICH A MINOR MAY BE TRIED AS
ADULT FOR CERTAIN CRIMINAL OFFENSES IN DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA.
(a) Lowering Age at Which Minor May Be Excluded From
Jurisdiction of Family Court.--Section 16-2301, District of
Columbia Official Code, is amended--
[[Page H4340]]
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``sixteen years of age''
and inserting ``fourteen years of age''; and
(2) in paragraph (3) in the matter following subparagraph
(C), by striking ``the age of sixteen'' and inserting ``the
age of fourteen''.
(b) Lowering Age at Which Minor May Be Transferred to
Criminal Proceeding.--Section 16-2307(a), District of
Columbia Official Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``fifteen'' and inserting
``fourteen''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``sixteen'' and inserting
``fourteen''.
(c) Applicability.--This Act, and the amendments made by
this Act, shall apply with respect to criminal offenses
committed on and 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 now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the measure under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 5140 to lower the age at which a minor
may be tried as an adult for certain criminal offenses in the District
of Columbia to 14 years of age.
The District of Columbia has seen a staggering increase in juvenile
crime since the pandemic. According to the Metropolitan Police
Department, 51.8 percent of all robbery arrests in 2024 were juveniles,
and 53 percent of all carjacking arrests in 2025, as of August, were
juveniles.
Congress must respond to these violent crimes being committed by
juvenile perpetrators. Currently, minors 16 years old and older are
eligible to have their case moved up to criminal court and to be tried
as an adult in D.C. This bill lowers that age to 14 years old, making
14- and 15-year-olds who commit violent crimes eligible to be charged
as adults.
Violent crime refers to murder, first-degree sexual abuse, burglary
in the first degree, and robbery while armed, for example. When
juveniles commit crimes of this magnitude, they deserve sentencing that
reflects the seriousness of the crimes they committed.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Brandon Gill for leading this
legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1540
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, once again, we are back with a second bill to undermine
Washington, D.C., with an undemocratic and misguided policy.
Republicans in Congress are once more acting again as a city council
for D.C., overriding the choices of local residents and their elected
officials, while ignoring the real issues the rest of the country
faces.
Nearly 700,000 taxpaying Americans in D.C. deserve the same right to
self-governance as every other community including control over
criminal laws.
Democrats on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
strongly oppose this bill, which would allow children as young as 14
years old to be charged as adults. Let's be clear. This bill is not
about safety. It is about stripping away judicial discretion and
sending more children into the adult prison system.
This bill lowers the age at which children can be tried as adults in
D.C. from 16 to 14 years old for certain crimes. If a crime is
committed, a person should be held accountable. We all can agree on
this. A 14-year-old is not an adult. They are middle schoolers. Their
brains are still developing. Treating them as adults is shameful.
We can all agree that children should be treated differently by our
courts. That matters when it comes to accountability and
rehabilitation. Here is what the research shows.
Youth charged as adults are more likely to reoffend than youth that
go through the juvenile courts. That is not speculation. It is what
decades of data show.
The CDC reviewed the evidence and found that sending kids to adult
prisons increases violence and does not reduce it. The National
Research Council concluded that keeping punishment in line with age is
the best way to prevent future offending. Every shred of research says
the same thing. Putting kids in adult prison makes us less safe, not
more safe.
House Democrats know that violent crime, of course, has no place in
our communities. People are right to be concerned about crime.
Democrats are taking it seriously. If the goal is safer communities,
this bill moves us in the wrong direction.
Mr. Speaker, let's also talk about who this bill impacts. More than
93 percent of youth arrests in D.C. in the first half of this year were
Black youth. D.C. already has the highest youth incarceration rate in
the country. It is more than three times the national average. This
bill would take those discrepancies and make them worse, funneling even
more children into the adult system.
The bottom line is simple. The legislation in front of us would not
make us safer. It does not make D.C. safer. It makes D.C. less safe. It
will deepen racial disparities. It will push more kids into adult
prisons where they are more likely to come out worse off than they were
and not better. If we care about public safety, the last thing we
should do is put 14-year-olds in adult prison.
Instead of taking power away from D.C. residents and our elected
officials, Congress should focus on real national priorities like
addressing gun violence that threatens communities, threatens schools,
and threatens our cities every single day.
Finally, the rules in front of us have been created through the
incredible work of the community, through hearings, through meetings,
and through public testimony. Let's not all throw it out now. This bill
is not about making D.C. safer.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Gill), the sponsor of the bill.
Mr. GILL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Washington, D.C., is the Capital of
the United States. It should reflect the glory, the beauty, and the
grandeur of the most powerful civilization that has ever existed on the
face of the Earth.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, that is not the case under Democrat rule.
Under Democrat rule, especially in our Nation's Capital, we are forced
to live under the cloud of anarcho-tyranny where criminals roam free
and law-abiding families live in fear.
Mr. Speaker, under President Trump's leadership, Republicans are
restoring law and order to cities that have been virtually abandoned by
the left. That is why I introduced the District of Columbia Juvenile
Sentencing Reform Act. It will make sure violent criminals are treated
like violent criminals, no matter what their age.
Mr. Speaker, in 2021, Uber Eats driver Mohammad Anwar was murdered in
D.C. during a carjacking by two teenage girls. One of the criminals was
15 years old. She was convicted of felony murder, and she was given a
maximum sentence under D.C. law. She will be free when she turns 21
years old. That is 6 years for murder. That is 6 years for taking a
father away from his family. This bill ensures that that travesty of
justice never happens again.
Mr. Speaker, the reality of crime in D.C. is bleak. D.C.'s homicide
rate in 2024 was 27.3 per 100,000. That is the fourth highest in our
Nation. The first 6 months of 2025 alone, juveniles in D.C. were
arrested 900 times. Many of those arrests were for repeat violent
offenders. Around 200 juveniles arrested for violent crimes in 2024 had
prior violent crime arrests.
Mr. Speaker, this isn't rehabilitation. This is a revolving door of
crime that the left has created in this city. Meanwhile, the D.C.
Council passed reforms to weaken policing and reduce penalties for
carjacking and robbery. As a matter of policy, they are choosing
criminals over innocent Americans.
[[Page H4341]]
Mr. Speaker, we hear from the other side of the aisle that locking up
criminals by some weird and bizarre logic increases crime. The reality,
which we all know because it is self-evident, is that when a criminal
is in jail, by definition, they are not committing crimes on our
streets and not terrorizing innocent Americans.
We are told that if we care about public safety, we shouldn't put
criminals in prison. Mr. Speaker, this is insane. They know it. The
American people know it.
If we want to live in a law-abiding society, we have to get these
violent and ruthless offenders off of our streets. That is what
Republicans are doing, and that is what Democrats on the other side of
the aisle are fighting right now.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation lowers the age for transfer to adult
court from 16 to 14 for the most heinous crimes. We are talking about
murder, first-degree sexual assault, armed robbery, and burglary.
It expands the cases that can be tried by the U.S. Attorney's Office,
ensuring that woke, weird prosecutors like D.C. Attorney General Brian
Schwalb can't let violent offenders slip through the cracks. It sends a
simple message. Democrats may tolerate crime, but Republicans do not.
Mr. Speaker, every American should be able to walk down our streets
without fear of being murdered or raped or having their car broken
into. Every parent should be able to put their child to bed without
wondering if their home is going to be broken into.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fong). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. GILL of Texas. This bill restores order and common sense to the
laws of our Nation's Capital. The American people and every visitor in
D.C., as well, deserve nothing less.
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 time.
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.
____
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 Mendelson; Councilmember Anita Bonds, At-
Large; Councilmember Robert White, Jr., At-Large;
Councilmember
[[Page H4342]]
Brook 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.
____
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 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.
Ms. NORTON. While Congress has authority to legislate on local D.C.
matters, it does not have a duty to do so. It is a choice.
In Federalist 43, James Madison said of D.C. residents: `` . . . as a
municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own
suffrages, will, of course, be allowed them.''
Since 1802, Congress has established various types of local
government for D.C. In 1953, the Supreme Court held: `` . . . there is
no constitutional barrier to the delegation by Congress to the District
of Columbia of full legislative power.''
The local D.C. 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.
{time} 1550
That is the antithesis of democracy.
The substance of this bill is irrelevant, since there is never
justification for Congress to legislate on local D.C. matters.
Nevertheless, I will discuss it.
I strongly oppose charging 14-year-olds as adults. However, whether
to amend D.C. law to reduce or increase the minimum age a minor can be
charged as an adult should be a decision for D.C. alone.
In a series of cases since 2005, the Supreme Court has recognized
that children are ``constitutionally different from adults for purposes
of sentencing.''
In these cases, the court noted that childhood is marked by
``rashness, proclivity for risk, and inability to assess
consequences.'' The court said its decisions ``rested not only on
common sense--on what any parent knows--but on science and social
science as well.''
This bill is not only cruel, but counterproductive too. Most
incarcerated people return home. The evidence shows that a minor
charged as an adult is more likely to reoffend and be violent after
release than a minor charged as a juvenile.
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 enter into the Record a letter explaining why the D.C.
statehood bill 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. Kevin O. McCarthy,
Minority Leader,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles E. Schumer,
Majority 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
[[Page H4343]]
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 . . . .'' 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
[[Page H4344]]
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 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 of 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. 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, the 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 H.R. 5140, keep their
hands off D.C. and free D.C.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, we have debated these bills in a sincere
effort to work with the President of the United States to lower crime
in D.C. We have heard nothing from the Democrats other than there is no
crime problem in D.C., and that a solution is to make Washington, D.C.,
a State.
We are serious about lowering crime. We applaud the efforts of the
President of the United States. We will continue to work with him to
make our Capital City as safe as possible. I appreciate Brandon Gill,
the sponsor of the bill, and Byron Donalds for sponsoring the last
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).
Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Garcia for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. This
bill seeks to create 14-year-old prisoners in the adult criminal legal
system. We know this approach doesn't improve public safety. It only
traumatizes our babies. History tells us as much.
Antron McCray, 15 years old;
Yusef Salaam, 15 years old;
Raymond Santana, 14 years old;
Korey Wise, 16 years old; and
Kevin Richardson, 14 years old.
These five boys with big smiles and bright futures ahead of them went
on to experience fear and manipulation that no child should. They were
threatened, harassed, coerced, abused, and tried as adults, the very
harm that this Republican bill would expand.
From the moment of their arrest these teenage boys, these Black boys,
were treated as guilty of a horrific crime in Central Park, despite
being innocent of all accusations. It was part of the hyper-punitive
culture that prioritized political talking points about being tough on
crime and targeted Black and Brown communities rather than investing in
resources and policies that actually keep us all safe.
Does this sound familiar, Mr. Speaker?
During their trial, there was a PR campaign against the boys on TV
and in newspapers. Donald J. Trump himself spent the equivalent of more
than $200,000 advocating for them to get the death penalty.
These five Black and Brown children were innocent, but Trump wanted
them killed. To this day, he has not even apologized, and Republicans
in Congress are supporting him and his bigotry with this bill.
The story of the ``Exonerated Five'' is a tragedy and part of our
shared history, but Republicans want it to be the future.
First, their rhetoric demonized their communities. Then they began
weaponizing National Guard against citizens. Now they are changing laws
to incarcerate more people at an even younger age. Of course, the
prison industrial complex will reap the profits.
What Republicans do in D.C., they want to apply to the entire
country.
This Republican bill perpetuates racism. The Department of Justice
statistics show that Black kids are twice as likely to be incarcerated
compared to White kids, despite committing crimes at the same rate.
This Republican bill is flawed. By treating children as adults, Mr.
Speaker, you deny them protections from abuse from adults in prison,
including bullying, physical violence, sexual assault, and rape.
This Republican bill makes children's lives worse. Unlike in other
States, when kids in D.C. are treated as adults, the Bureau of Prisons
ships them hundreds of miles away from their family and loved ones to
places like South Dakota or Texas. This makes rehabilitation harder and
increases the likelihood of recidivism.
[[Page H4345]]
Don't just take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. There is a large
coalition opposing this bill.
Scientists tell us that young people's brains are not fully developed
until their twenties. They don't share the same culpability for their
actions as adults when they are only 14 years old.
Lawyers explain that children treated as adults, even when they are
innocent, are denied age-appropriate legal protections for the rest of
their lives.
Sociologists find that children who commit crimes are overwhelmingly
influenced by adults and their surroundings, not their own thinking.
Of course, the people of D.C. did not vote for Trump or any
Republican for that matter to be a city councilor.
Republicans are supporting this legislation not because they care
about public safety. If Republicans cared about reducing crime, then
they would tell Trump to stop delaying funding for community violence
prevention programs that already were passed with bipartisan support.
If Republicans cared about victims, then they would stop making cuts
to the crime victims fund so that people who experience harm get the
help that they need.
If Republicans cared about our kids, then they would invest in
restorative justice programs that teach children how to resolve their
conflicts without violence.
If Republicans cared about our kids, then they would support
commonsense legislation to prevent school shootings.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill to keep
our babies safe from trauma, abuse, and fear.
In the words of James Baldwin, ``The children are always ours, every
single one.''
I challenge you, Mr. Speaker, to protect them all.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Members are reminded to
refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time that I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, that is a perfect example of the difference in the two
sides on how to handle crime in D.C.
You have to hold people accountable for crimes, Mr. Speaker. If you
don't, then they will continue to commit crimes. That is what we have
here in Washington, D.C. That is why we are here today. That is why we
are here today.
Just coddling criminals, hiring therapists, hiring more social
workers, and creating more government programs have failed to work in
Washington, D.C., and many of the cities around the United States.
We have a President who is going to be tough on crime and tough on
criminals. That is what the theme of this legislation is, Mr. Speaker.
That is our way to reduce crime in Washington, D.C.
Their way hasn't worked. We are going to do it our way if we get the
support in the Chamber today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1600
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I remind our Republican colleagues that crime in D.C. over the last
few years has actually been going down. Quite frankly, the idea that we
are now going to put middle schoolers in prison--this should be called
the middle schoolers for prison act--is inhumane and shameful.
We can all agree that crime should be taken on, that D.C. and other
cities we want to make safer, but this idea that we are going to
penalize children in middle school at the age of 14 and put them in
prison is irresponsible and, quite frankly, it is un-American.
I remind my colleagues that at this moment, what we are doing right
now, is stripping 700,000 residents who have come together in D.C. to
create laws, to bring community together, to fight for statehood and
representation, we are going to strip them from their ability to manage
their own city.
These efforts do nothing to reduce crime or improve public safety.
Once again, I know that the President is obsessed with Washington, D.C.
He is obsessed with its local laws. I ask him once again that he should
step down as President and run for mayor if he is so interested. Let's
not put 14-year-olds in prison.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose passage of this bill, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Again, we are talking about violent crimes, violent crimes. What we
have seen in Washington, D.C., is an outbreak of juvenile crime because
the definition of juvenile in this city is 7 years higher than every
other city in America.
With this legislation, we are talking about addressing issues of
violent crime with juveniles. I think, Mr. Speaker, this is the path to
try to get the crime under control in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to
ensure that violent crime, including murder and first degree sexual
abuse, are taken seriously in the District of Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 707, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
____________________