[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 195 (Wednesday, November 19, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H4796-H4800]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CASH BAIL REFORM ACT OF 2025
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 879, I call up
the bill (H.R. 5214) to require mandatory pretrial and post conviction
detention for crimes of violence and dangerous crimes and require
mandatory cash bail for certain offenses that pose a threat to public
safety or order in the District of Columbia, 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 879, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, printed in the bill, is adopted and
the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 5214
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 Cash
Bail Reform Act of 2025''.
SEC. 2. MANDATORY PRETRIAL AND POST CONVICTION DETENTION FOR
CRIME OF VIOLENCE OR DANGEROUS CRIME.
(a) Pretrial Detention.--Section 23-1322, District of
Columbia Official Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``with an offense'' and
inserting ``with an offense, other than a crime of violence
or dangerous crime (as such terms are defined in section 1331
of this title),''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(j) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,
the judicial officer shall order each person charged with a
crime of violence or a dangerous crime (as such terms are
defined in section 1331 of this title) be detained for the
period before trial.''.
(b) Post Conviction Detention.--Section 23-1325, District
of Columbia Official Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``unless'' and all that
follows through ``section 23-1321''; and
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``unless'' and all that
follows through ``section 23-1321''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) This provisions of this section shall apply with
respect to a person convicted of a crime of violence or a
dangerous crime (as such terms are defined in section 1331 of
this title).''.
(c) Changes to Definition of Dangerous Crime.--Section 23-
1331(3), D.C. Official Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``Burglary or
attempted burglary'' and inserting ``Burglary in the first
degree, attempted burglary in the first degree, or burglary
with a dangerous weapon''; and
(2) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``Robbery or attempted
robbery'' and inserting ``Robbery in the first degree,
attempted robbery in the first degree, or robbery with a
dangerous weapon''.
(d) Changes to Definition of Crime of Violence.--Section
23-1331(4), D.C. Official Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``burglary'' and inserting ``burglary in
the first degree, attempted burglary in the first degree, or
burglary with a dangerous weapon' ''; and
(2) by striking ``robbery'' and inserting ``robbery in the
first degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, or
robbery with a dangerous weapon''.
(e) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Removal of crime of violence and dangerous crime from
pretrial release procedures.--Section 23-1322, District of
Columbia Official Code, is further amended--
(A) in subsection (b)(1), by striking subparagraph (A) and
redesignating subparagraphs (B) through (D) as subparagraphs
(A) through (C), respectively;
(B) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) Subject to rebuttal by the person, it shall be
presumed that no condition or combination of conditions of
release will reasonably assure the safety of any other person
and the community if the judicial officer finds that there is
probable cause to believe that the person--
``(1) has threatened, injured, intimidated, or attempted to
threaten, injure, or intimidate a law enforcement officer, an
officer of the court, or a prospective witness or juror in
any criminal investigation or judicial proceeding;
``(2) violated section 3 of the Act of July 8, 1932 (sec.
22-4503, D.C. Official Code), section 4(a) of such Act (sec.
22-4504(a), D.C. Official Code), or section 4(a-1) of such
Act (sec. 22-4504(a)(1), D.C. Official Code); or
``(3) violated the Firearm Control Regulations Act of 1975
(sec. 7-2508.01 et seq., D.C. Official Code) while on
probation, parole, or supervised release for committing a
dangerous crime or a crime of violence (as such terms are
defined in section 1331 of this title) and while armed with
or having readily available a firearm, imitation firearm, or
other deadly or dangerous weapon as described in section 2(a)
of the Act of July 8, 1832 (sec. 22-4502(a), D.C. Official
Code).'';
(C) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ``is a crime of'' and
all that follows through ``, or''; and
(D) by striking subsection (f)(3).
(2) Removal of murder offenses from pretrial release
procedures.--Section 23-1325, District of Columbia Official
Code, as amended by subsection (b), is amended by striking
subsection (a) and redesignating subsections (b) through (e)
as subsections (a) through (d), respectively.
SEC. 3. REQUIRING CASH BAIL FOR RELEASE OF INDIVIDUALS
CHARGED WITH PUBLIC SAFETY OR ORDER OFFENSES.
(a) In General.--Section 23-1321, District of Columbia
Official Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Released'' and
inserting ``Except as provided under paragraph (5),
released'';
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``; or'' and inserting a
semicolon;
(C) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; or''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) With respect to a person charged with a public safety
or order crime (as such term is defined in section 1331 of
this title), released only upon execution of a secured
appearance bond (as such term is defined in section 1331 of
this title) and subject to any requirement under subsections
(b) and (c) of this section as the judicial officer may
order.'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``or upon execution of
an unsecured appearance bond in an amount specified by the
court,'' and inserting ``upon execution of an unsecured
appearance bond in an amount specified by the court, or upon
a secured appearance bond under subsection (a)(5),''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) A person who is released upon the execution of an
appearance bond with a surety, under subsection (a)(5), may
be arrested by the surety, and if so arrested, shall be
delivered promptly to a United States marshal and brought
before a judicial officer in the District of Columbia. The
judicial officer shall determine in accordance with the
provisions of this section 23-1322 whether to revoke the
release of the person, and may absolve the surety of
responsibility to pay all or part of the bond in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 46 of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure. The person so committed shall be held in
official detention until released pursuant to this title or
any other provision of law.''.
(b) Definitions.--
(1) Public safety or order crime defined.--Section 23-1331,
District of Columbia Official Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(7) The term `public safety or order crime' means failure
to appear when ordered to do so by a judicial officer;
obstruction of justice; fleeing from a law enforcement
officer; rioting; inciting a riot; destruction of property;
stalking; burglary or robbery (other than burglary or robbery
in the first degree or with a dangerous weapon); or a
previous conviction of any such offense, or substantially
similar offense, under Federal, State, or local law.''.
(2) Secured appearance bond defined.--Section 23-1331,
District of Columbia Official Code, is further amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) The term `secured appearance bond' means an agreement
to forfeit upon failing to appear as required, the designated
property, including money, as is reasonably necessary to
assure the appearance of the person as required, and post
with the court the indicia of ownership of the property, or a
percentage of the money as the judicial officer may specify;
or a bail bond with solvent sureties in whatever amount is
reasonably necessary to assure the appearance of the person
as required.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 23-1321, District of
Columbia Official Code, is further amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``with an offense'' and
all that follows through ``shall issue'' and inserting ``with
an offense, other than a crime of violence or dangerous crime
(as such terms are defined in section 1331 of this title),
the judicial officer shall issue''; and
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``shall'' and inserting ``may''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``Least restrictive
further'' and inserting ``Further'';
(B) by striking paragraph (3) and redesignating paragraphs
(4) and (5) as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively; and
(C) in paragraph (4), as so redesignated, by striking
``additional or different conditions'' and inserting ``any
additional or different condition described under this
subsection''.
SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY.
This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall apply
with respect to an individual charged with an offense in the
District of Columbia on or after the date that is 30 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or their
respective designees.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Garcia) each will control 30 minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
General Leave
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the measure under consideration.
[[Page H4797]]
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, cashless bail allows dangerous and violent criminals on
our streets. For far too long, dangerous criminals have been allowed to
roam the streets of Washington, D.C., posing a threat to the general
public. Progressive, activist judges are currently allowed to release
criminals to D.C.'s streets with only a promise that they will not
reoffend and will return to court for their trial date.
The District of Columbia Cash Bail Reform Act would take away a
judge's ability to release these violent criminals. It would require
judges to hold anyone charged with a violent crime before trial, and it
would impose cash bail or bail bonds on anyone charged with a range of
public safety or law-and-order offenses.
This is a smart and long overdue reform that rectifies the ill-
conceived policies currently enacted in the District.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense public safety
bill, and I thank Representative Stefanik for her leadership on this
issue and the National Fraternal Order of Police for their support.
Mr. Speaker, 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 the legislation which is in front of
us, which is another completely unacceptable attack on the District and
on democratic principles.
We know that D.C. has more residents than two States. D.C. pays more
Federal taxes than 26 States. D.C.'s government is accountable to the
people who live here. Local leadership should be empowered to solve
problems without Congress constantly interfering.
I have said many times if Donald Trump wants to run D.C., he should
resign and run for Mayor. If Republicans want to get tough on crime,
they should stop protecting the criminals in the Epstein files and
demand transparency from Donald Trump. Let's talk about the bill in
front of us today.
We know the District of Columbia Cash Bail Reform Act is unfair and
bad policy. Under this bill, if someone is charged with certain crimes,
he will automatically be locked up before his trial. For other crimes,
this bill would require cash bail or bond.
This will make D.C.'s local law much more strict that even Federal
law. Pretrial release should be based on a judge's determination of
flight risk and danger to the community. We should let trained judges
and prosecutors do their jobs and consider each fact of each case.
A person shouldn't automatically be locked up based on a criminal
charge before he is even proven to be guilty. We know in our system
that a person is innocent until proven guilty. We know that should be
true whether that person is rich or poor.
This bill will lock up more low-income people and more people who are
also innocent. It will reinforce an unfair system where the rich get
perks, while the poor suffer.
Democrats are fighting for a system where wealthy elites aren't above
the law but where the justice system is fair for all. We are fighting
for democracy.
We should let the council, the Mayor, and the District's justice
system work together as they balance the public safety needs of the
people. When D.C. residents don't like local policies, they can demand
different policies from their elected leaders and certainly vote them
out of office.
This bill is not about safety but about Congress once again
interfering in local safety decisions by D.C. residents who are
perfectly capable of making these decisions on their own.
{time} 1400
We should be clear. This bill is also opposed by the Mayor, the city
council, and many in the community. It is an overreach by the
Republican majority to try to control the District.
Mr. Speaker, the bill is unnecessary. It undermines home rule, and it
can make D.C. less safe. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Ivey).
Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. As a former
prosecutor here in Washington, D.C., I had a chance to use these
statutes frequently with respect to the bail determination that is made
in all of these criminal cases at some point or another.
My colleague talked about this being commonsense legislation, but the
D.C. bill is patterned on the Federal Bail Reform Act. I note that
there is no effort to amend that here or change it in the way that has
been proposed in this bill.
In addition to that, roughly 40 States in the Union are patterned
after the Federal Bail Reform Act, just like the D.C. bill is, but
there is no effort to change those. Many of those 40 States are
represented by Members on the other side who support this bill.
The main point I want to raise right now is that it appears to me
that this bill, as drafted, would create a scenario that is
unconstitutional. As I read it, it strikes a 5-day provision. In other
words, when somebody is initially arrested, they can be held for 5
days, and so, Mr. Speaker, you can have the full-scale hearing.
The way this is drafted is it eliminates the 5 days, and it says:
Notwithstanding any other provision, the judicial officer
shall order that the person who is charged with this crime be
detained for the period before trial.
I think that says that no matter what, whoever is arrested for any of
these charges, there is a mandatory requirement that they be held for
the entire pretrial period. That would certainly be unconstitutional.
Under Salerno, the Supreme Court case which ruled on the
constitutionality of this language over 40 years ago, the Supreme Court
said that there are a variety of safeguards that have been put in
place: right to counsel, detention hearing, and the chance to offer
opposing evidence and the like, that provides the safeguards that
permit the statute to be found to be constitutional.
However, the way this bill is drafted, none of those safeguards could
come into play because the initial provision as it is written makes all
of those superfluous and says that no matter what, if these charges
arise, then the person has to be detained for the entire pretrial
period.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute
to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I would say at this point, though, that
because it is unconstitutional, I urge my Republican colleagues to
oppose this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this bill.
I would note that Salerno was written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, no
liberal advocate, and Justice Scalia supported it, as well.
This is a provision that has key safeguards that are excluded. By the
way this is drafted, it has to be revised. I oppose it even if you do
the revision piece, Mr. Speaker, because I think it violates the rights
of the District of Columbia to make their own determinations.
At a minimum, Mr. Speaker, please send constitutional law forward.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
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 gentlemen for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill which amends the District of
Columbia's pretrial release and detention law.
Last year, violent crime in D.C. was down 35 percent, reaching an
over-30-year low. This year, violent crime in D.C. is down 28 percent
compared to the same period last year.
I suspect most of my Republican colleagues do not know that D.C.'s
longstanding pretrial release and detention law is substantially the
same as the longstanding Federal pretrial release and detention law, or
that the same well-respected Federal agency provides pretrial services
for both the local and Federal trial courts in D.C.
This bill requires, in the case of certain crimes, pretrial detention
based solely on a charge and financial conditions for pretrial release.
However,
[[Page H4798]]
mandatory pretrial detention based solely on a charge is
unconstitutional and financial conditions for pretrial release
criminalize poverty.
Neither D.C. nor Federal law requires pretrial detention or financial
conditions for pretrial release, but both laws permit each. Under both
D.C. and Federal law, pretrial release and detention are based on a
judge's assessment of a defendant's risk of not appearing in court and
danger to the community. In contrast, 18 States, the majority of which
are red States, have a constitutional right to bail, meaning, except in
capital cases, a defendant cannot be detained pretrial based solely on
flight risk or dangerousness.
Pretrial detention is a severe restriction on the liberty of an
individual who is presumed innocent. This bill requires detention for
the period before trial based solely on a charge, with no adversary
hearing. That is unconstitutional. The Due Process Clause of the
Constitution requires an adversary hearing to detain a defendant for
the period before trial.
In 1987, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the
Federal pretrial release and detention law. In its ruling, the Court
stressed the law's procedural protections for defendants.
Chief Justice Rehnquist said:
In our society liberty is the norm, and detention prior to
trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception. We
hold that the provisions for pretrial detention in the Bail
Reform Act of 1984 fall within that carefully limited
exception. The act authorizes the detention prior to trial of
arrestees charged with serious felonies who are found after
an adversary hearing to pose a threat to the safety of
individuals or to the community which no condition of release
can dispel. The numerous procedural safeguards detailed above
must attend this adversary hearing.
Studies show that whether a jurisdiction requires financial
conditions for pretrial release has no effect on the crime rates of
that jurisdiction. Instead, even small financial conditions for
pretrial release often force poor defendants to remain in jail, which
can cost them their jobs and housing and leads to more convictions and
longer sentences.
The over 700,000 D.C. residents, the majority of whom are Black and
Brown, are capable and worthy of governing themselves. If residents do
not like how the D.C.'s local legislature votes, residents can vote
them out of office or pass a ballot measure. That is called democracy.
If D.C. residents do not like how the Members of Congress vote on
local D.C. matters, residents cannot vote them out of office. That is
the antithesis of democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters opposing this bill from
the D.C. Mayor, the entire D.C. Council, and the D.C. Attorney General,
all of whom were elected by D.C. residents.
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, U.S. 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 upend 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
[[Page H4799]]
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 Kenyan McDuffie, At-
Large; Councilmember Anita Bonds, At-Large; Councilmember
Christina Henderson, At-Large; Councilmember Robert White,
Jr., At-Large; Councilmember Brianne Nadeau, Ward 1;
Councilmember Brooke Pinto, Ward 2; Councilmember Matthew
Frumin, Ward 3; Councilmember Janeese Lewis George, Ward 4;
Councilmember Zachary Parker, Ward 5; Councilmember Charles
Allen, Ward 6; Councilmember Wendell Felder, Ward 7;
Councilmember Trayon White, Sr, Ward 8.
____
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%) 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. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
undemocratic and paternalistic bill. It is long past time for Congress
to pass the D.C. statehood bill. Free D.C.
{time} 1410
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared
to close.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Walkinshaw).
Mr. WALKINSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5214, which
erodes the self-governance of the District of Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, 2 months ago, I was a local government official not far
from here, in Fairfax County. In the 6 years I spent in that role, I
learned that the people best positioned to make decisions about the
local policies in their local communities are local leaders after
listening to that local community.
My colleagues across the aisle who are advocating for these bills,
with due respect, know very little about the District of Columbia, know
very little outside of perhaps their walk from their apartment in Navy
Yard to this Capitol complex. They don't know the history,
neighborhoods, communities, and challenges that folks in the District
are facing.
While my colleagues espouse the virtues of self-governance, they
simultaneously advocate for bills like this that strip self-governance
from 700,000 Americans.
In 1973, Congress passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to
grant the inhabitants of the District powers of local self-government.
This bill is just one of many in this House that erodes those powers to
help President Trump consolidate power over our Nation's Capital.
Meanwhile, the American people are confronting crisis after crisis
that demands action from this Congress. Our national economy is
struggling under President Trump's leadership. Tariffs are driving up
prices. Looming healthcare cuts are about to result in skyrocketing
premiums for Americans across the Nation.
In the midst of this, how does the majority choose to spend its time?
It is spending its time by meddling in D.C.'s local affairs and further
disenfranchising 700,000 taxpaying Americans.
I strongly oppose this bill and encourage my colleagues to vote
``no.''
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, just to respond to our new colleague here who
hasn't worked in Congress very long, this bill passed constitutional
muster with the House Legislative Counsel, CRS, and various outside
stakeholders. None of our Democrat colleagues brought up these concerns
during the markup.
Let me say this. For those of us who have worked here in Washington,
D.C., for a decade, we are very aware of the crime, the repeat
offenders, and the juvenile crime rates in Washington, D.C., so we are
taking action to try to make our Capital City a safer place. That is
why I strongly support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, Free D.C.
To my colleagues across the aisle, I appreciate the debate, but I
have to say I thought we were going to try to fix healthcare, to
address costs, try to fix the economy, and get the country back on
track. Isn't that what the promise at the end of the shutdown was when
we came back into session?
Yet, here we are, 1 week after the end of the shutdown, after a truly
harrowing several days dealing with the Epstein petition, and what are
you guys putting on the floor to eat up precious floor time as we are
headed into the holidays? We are debating bills to micromanage D.C.
affairs, bills to open public land and Tribal sacred sites to oil and
gas drilling, and a ridiculous political resolution that I heard your
own Members last night on the floor talking about. They called it
stupid
[[Page H4800]]
and kind of crazy. Those are their words, not mine, but I don't
disagree, so don't get me wrong.
After 54 days of the House of Representatives being shut down, all
you guys really seem to have time to do is run bills like this?
What I find particularly offensive is that in a week that we should
be working to address the healthcare crisis in a bipartisan manner, you
are trying to pass bills today that would undo local police reforms
that our Nation's Capital put into place after George Floyd's murder to
ensure that the people of this city are safe and that the justice
system is fair for them.
If it is not clear, I am a hard ``no'' on these bills, not just
because I believe they represent congressional overreach and abuse of
power, but because they will harm the people of our Nation's Capital.
Also, and I think this is where the conversation needs to be had, if
we actually want to address public safety and help communities across
this country that elected us to do this work, we need to be addressing
real solutions. We need to be addressing the addiction crisis;
investing in behavioral health and addiction recovery programs;
investing in diversion and community-based programs that help people
who are hurting and living on the edge get back on their feet;
investing in our children and pipelines for young people to have lives
that they can only dream of; fixing a broken system that makes it
difficult for people who are living on the edge to survive; raising
wages; lowering the costs of housing, food, energy, and healthcare;
and, yes, fixing the broken healthcare system that you all said you
were going to come back to address.
These are the systems that are broken and that are hurting our
people, especially in New Mexico. It is not just the cost of healthcare
that is going up, but our hospitals, clinics, and providers who are
struggling to make sure that they can stay afloat, especially after the
big, ugly bill gutted and promised to take $1.5 trillion out of the
public healthcare system.
It is why I have been working to champion bipartisan healthcare and
health solutions, like bills to invest in urban, rural, and Tribal
healthcare; to invest congressional funds into building clinics; to
sponsor legislation to address the fentanyl crisis; to recruit and
train more nurses and healthcare professionals; to recruit more
counselors to fix the Medicaid and Medicare system; to expand
telehealth and broadband; and, yes, to finally put this country on a
track to universal healthcare.
I believe that healthcare is a human right. I believe that access to
food, water, shelter, and safety is a human right. I believe that
justice, freedom, and access to the criminal justice system are human
rights. I believe that basic dignity is a human right. That is why I
implore my colleagues to stop with these divisive political tactics
every day and these bills attacking our communities and focus on the
issues that matter and that the American people are asking us to do.
That is why we were elected.
Real lives are on the line, so let's get back to work on real issues.
Stop attacking Washington, D.C. Stop attacking our public lands. Stop
attacking the basic dignity and human decency of our communities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Babin). Members are reminded to direct
their comments to the Chair and not to individuals.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentlewoman that we believe on
this side of the aisle that lowering the crime rate is a big issue. It
is a priority for the American people.
The gentlewoman from New Mexico mentioned the government shutdown. I
would like to remind the gentlewoman from New Mexico that she voted to
shut the government down. Then, she had an opportunity 43 days later to
reopen the government, and she voted against reopening the government.
That is something that I think she must have mistakenly omitted from
her remarks.
Again, we support every measure that can be done to reduce crime and
to get criminals that have committed crimes and keep them in jail. They
deserve due process, but we can't continue this trend in these cities,
especially the Capital City, of letting violent criminals out back on
the streets.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1420
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Speaker, I, once again, urge our colleagues to oppose this bill.
D.C. has a right and its residents have a right to govern themselves
and elect mayors and council members that choose to pass laws to
support the District. Congress should not be undermining local laws.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans want to make it easier to lock up poor
defendants pretrial, undermining the fundamental American principle of
innocent until proven guilty, all while stripping 700,000 residents of
self-rule. Congress should not dictate local judicial policy.
Mr. Speaker, we should oppose these bills, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5214 will ensure that violent offenders remain off
of the streets of D.C. while awaiting their trial and that those
charged with public safety or order offenses will face further
deterrence from committing such crimes through the reinstatement of
required cash bail and bail bonds.
Overall, D.C. residents, workers, and visitors to our Nation's
Capital should feel safe, and it remains the constitutional duty of
Congress to reform Washington, D.C.'s laws when necessary to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense
legislation to bring law and order to D.C. by ensuring that dangerous
criminals will not re-offend before their trial date.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 879, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________