[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 152 (Wednesday, September 17, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H4375-H4379]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS REFORM ACT
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 707, I call up
the bill (H.R. 5125) to amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to
terminate the District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission, and
for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 707, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 119-13 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is
considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 5125
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 ``District of Columbia
Judicial Nominations Reform Act of 2025''.
SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUDICIAL
NOMINATION COMMISSION.
(a) Termination.--The District of Columbia Home Rule Act is
amended by striking section 434 (sec. 1-204.34, D.C. Official
Code).
(b) Conforming Amendments Relating to Appointment of
Judges.--
(1) Designation of chief judges by president.--Section
431(b) of such Act (sec. 1-204.31(b), D.C. Official Code) is
amended by striking ``the District of Columbia Judicial
Nominating Commission established by section 434'' and
inserting ``the President''.
(2) Appointment by president.--Section 433(a) of such Act
(sec. 1-204.33(a), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking
``Except as provided in section 434(d)(1), the President
shall nominate, from the list of persons recommended to him
by the District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission
established under section 434,'' and inserting ``The
President shall nominate,''.
(3) Qualifications of judges.--Section 433(b) of such Act
(sec. 1-204.33(b), D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(A) by adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
(B) by striking paragraph (4) and redesignating paragraph
(5) as paragraph (4); and
(C) in paragraph (4), as so redesignated, by striking ``or
of the District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission''.
(c) Other Conforming Amendment.--Section 11-1528(a)(2),
District of Columbia Official Code, is amended by striking
subparagraph (C).
(d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of the
District of Columbia Home Rule Act is amended by striking the
item relating to section 434.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to appointments made on or 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.
[[Page H4376]]
The chair now 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. 5125, the District of Columbia Judicial
Nomination Reform Act.
This legislation aligns with the appointment of D.C. judges with the
constitutional process for appointing members of the Federal judiciary.
This bill preserves the President's authority to nominate, with the
advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, anyone deemed appropriate to sit
on the D.C. court.
The current system, where the President is restricted to nominating
only those candidates put forward by the D.C. Judicial Nomination
Commission, inappropriately limits the President's authority.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Representative from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for
his leadership on this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this effort, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill, which would eliminate the
D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission and give a President, any
President, the sole power to make nominations for D.C. local courts,
which deal with municipal issues.
Right now, under the Home Rule Act, the D.C. Judicial Nomination
Commission submits a list of three candidates for each judicial
vacancy. Of course, then it is considered by the President. This bill
would wipe away the commission, and it would allow the President to
directly appoint and have full control over the selection of these
judges.
This is an absurd level of Federal control over local judges. Every
State and territory in the United States selects its own judges. Only
in D.C. do Republicans think that President Trump should decide who the
local judges are.
Let's also be honest about what the bill is really about. This has
nothing to do with public safety. It is a power grab to take away power
and authority from over 700,000 residents of this district.
Let's be clear. D.C. does face a judicial vacancy crisis. There are
currently 15 open seats across the Superior Court of D.C. and D.C.
Court of Appeals. There are 13 on the superior court side and two on
the court of appeals. Why do those vacancies actually exist? The
commission has submitted names for every single one of those open
seats.
The bottleneck is not the commission. It is the slow pace of
nominations by the President and confirmations by this Senate. The
Senate can solve this tomorrow, and we know who controls the Senate. It
is the Republicans.
Let's be honest about what this bill is really about. It is not about
the Constitution. It is about partisanship. The House majority wants to
give Donald Trump the ability to select judges for local municipal
matters for Washington, D.C., and bypass the current commission process
that exists.
This is another attempt for Republicans to try to gut D.C.'s
nonpartisan judiciary and replace it with partisan rightwing judges.
The legislation does nothing to improve the judicial system. It
strips away one of the few tools D.C. residents have to shape their
courts, and it erodes judicial independence. The bill isn't necessary.
It is undemocratic. It really goes to the independence of our courts.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to oppose it, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sessions), the sponsor of the bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the young chairman of the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform from Kentucky (Mr. Comer)
for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, what we have heard today is a continuation of this lame
excuse of politics and on Donald Trump. The gentleman from California
did allude to it but really did not get into much more of the data.
{time} 1220
The bottom line is from 9/30/20, 2/25/23, 6/30/23, 7/28/23, 3/22/24,
4/12/24, 10/1/24, each of these people were nominated by the
distinguished gentleman, the former President of the United States, Mr.
Biden.
This is not political. This is getting the work done that Washington,
D.C. needs, and this commission process that we go through does not
work.
I know we wanted to hear that this is all related to Donald Trump and
Republicans wanting to control the process that goes on so that we can
control Washington, D.C.
Mr. Speaker, it is not working is the reason why I am on the floor
today.
Mr. Speaker, this bill, H.R. 5125 is about a process that can work.
The gentleman from California is correct. A lot of it is political, but
what it is to do is to say that if the people of this country have
chosen the President of the United States, then that is the direction
we will go. We will give that President, whether it be Republican or
Democrat, whether it be a man or a woman, we will give that President
the opportunity for the control of this nomination and the system here
in Washington, D.C.
We have got a lot at risk. Mr. Speaker, we have got a lot at risk
which is the same reason why President Trump finally had the guts--yes,
I will call them guts--to call in the National Guard to take on the
crime presence that exists in Washington, D.C.
Members of Congress have had their cars stolen. We have had Members
of Congress who were assaulted. We have had staff members of this body
who were killed. People who come to this town from across the United
States want, need, and expect that Washington, D.C. does not become or
continue to be a work-free drug zone.
Washington, D.C. should be safe for visitors not just of the United
States, but for international visitors who visit also. The basis of
that which Chairman Comer is bringing to the floor today is to look at,
from top to bottom, not just the judicial system, but really the entire
process of the court system.
I have some background in this. My father served as a chief judge of
the Western District of Texas in San Antonio. He served as FBI Director
for President Reagan, President Bush, and President Clinton. He
understood firsthand that control of crime has a lot to do with how you
deal with criminals, Mr. Speaker.
This opportunity that we bring today to the floor is to go back to a
process that works and is a process that is driven by the President of
the United States who also has authority and responsibility over this
beautiful city.
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my good
friend that in Texas local judges are elected by Texas citizens, not
chosen directly by the President. In this case, in this bill, they want
to bypass any sort of local control of the selection of judges and have
these appointees be chosen directly by Donald Trump. That is wrong, and
Members should oppose this bill.
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 bill, which eliminates the
District of Columbia's already small role in the selection of its local
judges.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters opposing this bill from
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, the entire D.C. Council, D.C. Attorney Brian
Schwalb, and the D.C. Bar.
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
[[Page H4377]]
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 eduction
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.; Councilmember Brooke
Pinto, Ward 2; Councilmember Janeese Lewis George, Ward 4;
Councilmember Charles Allen, Ward 6; 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; Councilmember Trayon
White, Sr, Ward 8.
____
Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the
Attorney General,
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
[[Page H4378]]
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.
____
DC Bar,
Washington, DC,
September 12, 2025.
Re: District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission.
James Comer, Chair,
Robert Garcia, Ranking Member,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Garcia: I am writing
to you on behalf of the District of Columbia Bar (the D.C.
Bar) and its Board of Governors in support of the vital work
of the District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission
(JNC or Commission) and its essential role in maintaining the
integrity and excellence of the District of Columbia's
courts. In particular, the D.C. Bar supports the views
presented by members of the Commission in their September 9,
2025, letter, a copy of which is attached here. The continued
work of the JNC is important and valuable to D.C. Bar
members, District residents, and the administration of
justice in the District of Columbia.
Congress created the Commission in 1973 to ensure that the
District's local judges are selected based on professional
qualifications, experience, judicial temperament, and
commitment to justice. Comprised of Commissioners appointed
by the President of the United States, the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia, the Mayor and
Council of the District of Columbia, and the D.C. Bar, the
JNC is a hallmark of bipartisan commitment to merit-based
judicial selection, and has produced one of the nation's most
well-respected local court systems.
The JNC's mission is straightforward: to recommend to the
President highly qualified individuals to fill judicial
vacancies on the District's local courts, and to select the
chief judges of the D.C. Court of Appeals and the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia. For more than five
decades, through rigorous evaluation of legal experience,
integrity, intellectual capacity, and community standing, the
Commission has consistently provided the President with a
carefully vetted pool of highly qualified nominees.
Despite having numerous vacancies in recent years, our
local courts constantly handle demanding caseloads comprising
complex matters. The commitment and dedication of our local
judges are a testament to the work and value of the
Commission.
The D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission represents the best
of American democratic institutions: independent, merit-
based, and committed to the public good. Its continued
effectiveness depends on timely confirmation of nominees and
sustained support for its mission and recognition of its
vital contribution to the administration of justice in the
District of Columbia. We respectfully urge your continued
support for this exemplary institution and its critical work
in the service of justice in the nation's capital.
Sincerely,
Sadina Montani,
President, D.C. Bar.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I also insert into the Record a letter on
this bill from the D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission.
District of Columbia,
Judicial Nomination Commission,
Washington, DC, September 9, 2025.
Re H.R. 5125, District of Columbia Judicial Nominations
Reform Act.
James Comer, Chair,
Robert Garcia, Ranking Member,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Garcia: Members of
the District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission
respectfully submit this letter to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform in response to H.R. 5125, District of
Columbia Judicial Nominations Reform Act.
The District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission
(JNC or Commission) was established by Congress on December
24, 1973 (Public Law 93-198, 87 Stat. 796). The JNC is
composed of seven members--two appointed by the Mayor of the
District of Columbia, two by the Board of Governors of the
District of Columbia Bar Association (Unified), one by the
Council of the District of Columbia, one by the President of
the United States, and one judicial member appointed by the
Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia. Each member is appointed for a six-year
term, except for the member appointed by the President, who
serves a five-year term
The JNC solicits, screens, and recommends a panel of three
candidates to the President of the United States for each
judicial vacancy on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. From the
panel of names recommended by the JNC, the President
nominates a person for each vacancy and submits the nominee's
name to the United States Senate for confirmation. The JNC
also designates the Chief Judges for the District of Columbia
courts.
The JNC, using a merit-based selection process, works to
provide the citizens of the District of Columbia with the
best possible court system by (a) soliciting a diverse and
talented pool of applicants for each judicial vacancy; (b)
screening applicants to ensure they have the requisite
experience, skill, temperament, and qualifications for
judicial office; and (c) recommending the three most
qualified applicants to the President of the United States
for his or her consideration in selecting a nominee to fill
each judicial vacancy on the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
Since its first list of applicants was sent to President R.
Gerald Ford, Jr. on May 8, 1975, the JNC has recommended more
than 93 candidates for 31 vacancies on the District of
Columbia Court of Appeals (Court of Appeals) and more than
513 candidates for 171 vacancies on the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia (Superior Court). Working with both
Republican and Democratic Presidents for more than 50 years,
the Senate has confirmed 29 Presidential nominations to the
Court of Appeals and 159 to the Superior Court. To date, the
Senate has confirmed more Republican Presidential nominees to
both courts--17 of 29 on the Court of Appeals and 83 of 159
on the Superior Court. All the Presidential nominees were
selected from lists the JNC sent to the President pursuant to
D.C. Code Sec. Sec. 1-204.31, 1-204.33. Arguably, the
judicial nomination process in the District of Columbia is
one of the best nonpartisan processes in the country, a
process that President Trump engaged in during his first term
(with 10 confirmations to the local courts) and on September
2, 2025, when he nominated candidates for three vacancies on
the Superior Court.
In conclusion, the Commission members are united in
expressing our pride in the JNC's lengthy history of
proficient service. The Commission process has been effective
for over 50 years, working with both Republican and
Democratic administrations. Our process is carefully designed
to ensure that the over 700,000 residents of our city have a
voice in judicial appointments, while also respecting the
President's authority in nominating individuals for the
critical role of judicial service in the District of
Columbia. We stand in support of the JNC's current role and
configuration, and we look forward to continuing to serve our
city in discharging our critically important
responsibilities.
Respectfully Submitted,
For the Commission:
Hon. Marie C. Johns, PPC-Leftwich, Washington, DC.
Benjamin F. Wilson, Esq., Washington, DC.
Addy R. Schmitt, Esq., Kropf Moseley Schmitt, Washington,
DC.
Vincent H. Cohen, Jr., Esq., Dechert LLP, Washington, DC.
Yaida O. Ford, Esq., Ford Law Pros PC, Washington, DC.
Hon. Linda W. Cropp, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tanya S. Chutkan, United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, United States Courthouse, Washington,
DC.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, under the D.C. Home Rule Act, the President,
with the advice and consent of the Senate--a chamber in which D.C. has
no representation--appoints judges to the local D.C. courts. The
President must make a nomination from a list of candidates recommended
by the Judicial Nomination Commission. The establishment of the
Judicial Nomination Commission provided D.C. with three, albeit
limited, roles in the nomination of its local judges. First, members of
the commission must be D.C. residents. Second, D.C. appoints three of
the seven members of the commission. Third, the commission holds a
public comment period on applicants for a vacancy on the local D.C.
courts, allowing D.C. residents to express their views on applicants.
Republicans claim the Judicial Nomination Commission is
unconstitutional because it limits the President's authority to make
nominations. They are wrong. The commission has been in existence for
50 years. Congress, not the President, has plenary authority over D.C.
Congress also has plenary authority over the territories, and
Congress has given them authority to select their local judges without
any role whatsoever for the President or Congress.
[[Page H4379]]
I refer my Republican colleagues to the Supreme Court's decision in
2020 regarding the appointments to the Puerto Rico financial control
board, which Congress established pursuant to its plenary authority
over Puerto Rico. The court held the appointments clause of the
Constitution does not ``restrict the appointment of local officers that
Congress vests with primarily local duties'' pursuant to the
territorial or District clauses of the Constitution. Local D.C. judges
are local officers that Congress vests with primarily local duties
pursuant to the District clause.
The longstanding judicial vacancy crisis on the local D.C. courts is
not due to any failure of the Judicial Nomination Commission. The
commission always meets its 60-day statutory deadline to submit a list
of names for a vacancy to the President. The crisis exists because the
President and, to a larger extent, the Senate, regardless of the party
in power, do not prioritize local D.C. judges. For example, there has
been a vacancy on D.C.'s highest local court since 2013.
Congress should give authority to the over 700,000 D.C. residents to
select their local judges in any manner they choose. D.C. residents,
the majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable and worthy of
governing themselves.
Since Republicans do not trust D.C. residents with self-government,
they should at least address the longstanding vacancy crisis in the
local D.C. courts, which is harming public safety and access to
justice. A simple solution is to make an appointment to the local D.C.
courts effective 30 days after the President makes a nomination, unless
Congress enacts a disapproval resolution during that period. That is
essentially the same process used for congressional review of
legislation enacted by D.C.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the D.C. Judicial
Nominations Reform Act and to grant D.C. statehood instead. Free D.C.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 additional minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman coming forth,
as she does represent the District of Columbia, but I think in the
argument it is important to note that these are not just local judges
that we are talking about. They don't handle any matter that is related
to a ticket or parking ticket, local matters. In fact, they deal with
serious matters, and that is why it comes to the attention of the
United States Senate and the President of the United States.
This bill does not remove any sitting judges on either the D.C.
Superior Court or the D.C. Court of Appeals, but, in fact, we believe
it is important. As the gentlewoman noted, since 2013 we still have
people who have been hanging out and not approved.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go through this, because I really
did not do the due diligence to know why there are people here who have
not been approved. They are still pending.
What I would tell you, Mr. Speaker, is that we have lots of time
since 2013 where Republicans and Democrats who were in charge in the
United States Senate could have moved these nominations forward, and
they chose not to.
{time} 1230
I am simply standing and saying that I believe that today this bill
needs to be passed because Washington, D.C., and the sitting courts do
need additional judges. They need competent people who would be
prepared to move forward.
If there is one President who would nominate and get this done, it
would be Donald Trump. Donald Trump deeply believes in the success of
Washington, D.C. He believes Washington, D.C., should be a place that
is safe and has good judges. This will be an opportunity for us not
only to understand a different way to handle this but a way that we can
look back and say we have made Washington, D.C., just a little bit
better because the Republican Party cares deeply about Washington, its
success, and, mostly, the safety of the people who live here.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the young chairman for allowing me to bring this
bill together.
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Speaker, I just will clarify for the gentleman from Texas that
these are not Federal circuit judges. They have the same jurisdiction
as State and local judges. That is what actually the bill presented
says. These are local judges. They are not circuit judges. They are not
Federal judges.
Let's be clear what this is about. This is about allowing Donald
Trump to select local judges for D.C. and bypass a commission system
that is currently in place where the President still has an ability to
select from a panel of different judges. There is no State in the
United States, in our country, that allows the President to directly
select local judges. This is an outrageous attempt to take away power
from 700,000 residents and to hurt our independent judiciary system
here in the District.
This bill is not about safety. It is not about the Constitution. It
has nothing to do with Federal Circuit court judges. It is a power grab
for Donald Trump to self-select judges.
Finally, as I close, I remind all our friends that all of these D.C.
bills in front of us are about Donald Trump trying to play Mayor of
Washington, D.C. If he wants to be mayor, he should resign from
President and run for mayor himself.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Another day on the House floor where the Republicans try to address
the D.C. crime crisis with serious, substantive solutions and another
day where the Democrats try to act like there is no crime problem in
Washington, D.C., and reverberate the symptoms of their Trump
derangement syndrome.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Sessions legislation
which corrects an inappropriate limitation on Presidential authority to
appoint judges in the District of Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 707, the
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on 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.
____________________