▶ 0:25:18To declare a recess at any time pursuant to committee rule five b and house rule 11, clause two. The chair may postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or matter, or adopting an amendment on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered. The committee will continue to use the electronic system for recorded votes on amendments and passage of the bills before the committee. Of course, should any technical issues arise, which I do not anticipate, we will immediately transition to traditional roll call votes.
▶ 0:25:49Any procedural or motion related votes during today's markup will be dispensed with by a traditional roll call vote. I will begin with with my opening statement, crime in the district of columbia has recently reached levels unseen since the violent era of the early 1990s. Juvenile crime has reportedly more than doubled the national average. As of february 2024. The D.C. attorney general and D.C.
▶ 0:26:18Counsel's soft on crime policies have created an environment of school absences and offenders to be released, allowing juvenile crime and violent crime to flourish. Further, recent anti-law enforcement rhetoric and highly restrictive policing laws from the D.C. council have created retention and recruitment challenges for the metropolitan police department.
▶ 0:26:38President trump, in response, has made sweeping moves to bring federal law enforcement resources into the district and exercise existing authorities under the home rule act to direct local law enforcement to combat the crime crisis. Like president trump, house republicans are committed to restoring law and order and our nation's capital city.
▶ 0:27:00The home rule act, which was signed into law in 1973, provides a charter for the local government of the district of columbia granting a degree of self-governance to D.C. officials, including the authority to legislate, conduct elections, and otherwise govern local municipal affairs. Under the home rule act, congress retains the right to enact legislation for D.C.
▶ 0:27:21On any subject, including legislation to amend or repeal any law in force in the district prior to or after enactment, and any act passed by the D.C. council. Today, this committee will exercise this authority to consider several pieces of legislation to reinforce president trump's efforts to make D.C. safe again.
▶ 0:27:42Every resident and visitor deserves to feel safe in a nation's capital, and today, this committee will fulfill its constitutional duty to oversee district affairs and make D.C. safe again. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting today's agenda of legislation needed to address dc's crime crisis. I now yield to the ranking member for his opening statement. >> move on to the.
▶ 0:28:11For the first item. Okay. >> our next item for consideration. Our first item for consideration is h.r. 5183, the district of columbia home rule improvement act. The clerk will please designate the bill. >> h.r.
▶ 0:28:275083, the district of columbia home rule improvement act, a bill to amend the district of columbia home rule act to establish a uniform, 60 day congressional review period for the district of columbia laws to clarify the expedited procedures applicable to consideration of resolutions of disapproval of district of columbia laws to authority. The use of resolutions of disapproval to disapprove provisions of district of columbia laws and district of columbia executive orders and regulations, and for other purposes. >> without objection, the bill shall be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Without objection so ordered.
▶ 0:28:56The chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk will designate the amendment. >> an amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 5183 is offered by Mr. comer of kentucky. >> without objection, the amendment is considered as read and substitute will be considered as original text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize myself for five minutes for a statement on the bill and the amendment. The constitution explicitly grants congress authority over the district of columbia. When congress passed the D.C.
▶ 0:29:21Home rule in 1973, it retained certain powers for itself to ensure accountability and oversight of washington, D.C. one of these powers is the ability to formally disapprove of D.C. council legislation through resolutions of disapproval. However, the D.C. council has attempted to bypass congressional oversight by abusing loopholes and bundling ultra progressive policies in too big to fail legislative packages in order to pass irresponsible legislation.
▶ 0:29:50As a result, D.C. has become less safe for its residents and visitors. The district of columbia home rule improvement act allows congress to exercise additional oversight by allowing for a line item disapproval of D.C. legislation providing a uniform 60 day window for all D.C. council actions to receive congressional review, and expanding the types of policy actions that congress can disapprove of. To include executive actions of D.C. mayor, D.C. agency regulations, and D.C.
▶ 0:30:20Council emergency legislation. Further, this legislation, like the congressional review act process for federal agency regulatory review, prevents the D.C. council from passing any substantially similar laws that congress has disapproved of in the future, and from attempting to withdraw its own legislation from the congressional disapproval window, which we saw happen in 2023 with the revised criminal code act of 2022.
▶ 0:30:45Overall, this legislation will ensure congress has the procedural tools to exercise its constitutional oversight role over the district and ensure responsible local governance of the nation's capital. I want to thank the sponsor of the bill, representative gosar from arizona, for championing this important reform legislation. I urge my colleagues to support, uh, representative bill. I now recognize the ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you. Thank you, chairman cohen.
▶ 0:31:11I want to say some, um, some remarks and then talk about, of course, this first bill, um, it's pretty clear that donald trump and house republicans, especially here on the oversight committee, are pushing a blatant power grab by hijacking authority from local washington, D.C. leaders and residents. Now, as a former mayor myself, I know that city governments must serve the residents, and governments are there on behalf of the people. It's also a way to ensure when you elect someone to government, that they're being held accountable by the people that elect them.
▶ 0:31:42Now, congress should not use our nation's capital, an american city with over 700,000 residents, as a political prop, the people of washington, D.C. should be empowered to make their own decisions. And quite frankly, if the president is so obsessed with governing D.C. he should step down as president and run for mayor. Now, Mr. comer, we'll talk about this first, bill.
▶ 0:32:06I and democrats strongly oppose the so-called district of columbia home rule improvement act, which should just be known, quite frankly, as a home rule reduction act. We know that D.C. autonomy is already limited, as the world has learned over the last month. I understand how difficult the federal government can make running a city on a day to day basis, and we should be empowering D.C. to fix its own problems. We know that this bill further limits dc's autonomy.
▶ 0:32:31The bill limits dc's ability to respond to an emergency and could cause chaos in the D.C. code. The purpose of the D.C. home rule act, the foundation of the D.C. government, is to, and I quote, grant to the inhabitants of the district of columbia powers of local self-government and to relieve congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially local district matters, end quote. The home rule reduction act does just the opposite.
▶ 0:32:58It restricts powers of local self-government and increases the burden on congress to legislate on local D.C. matters. Now the bill endangers residents and visitors by limiting the authority of both the mayor and council to respond to an emergency, and that is dangerous. The bill strips the mayor of authority to issue executive orders and regulations that take effect immediately, even in the event of an emergency, such as a need to protect the peace, health or safety of residents.
▶ 0:33:28Now, this bill requires executive orders and regulations to be transmitted to congress for a 60 day congressional review before they take effect. The bill does not contain an exception for an emergency, and that is highly problematic. The bill also allows congress to use a disapproval resolution for individual provisions of a D.C.
▶ 0:33:50Bill, rather than only for the entire bill, giving congress a line item veto for dc bills will cause chaos in the D.C. code. Members of congress will introduce disapproval resolutions on individual provisions without understanding how those provisions affect other provisions of the bill. Undergoing the congressional review process or the D.C. code.
▶ 0:34:13That means more congressional micromanagement and more meddling in the democratic process, and that is less local authority and control for the people that have been elected to serve D.C. residents. I urge members to vote no on the home rule reduction act. And with that, I yield back. >> the ranking member yields back. I now recognize the sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from arizona, Mr. gosar. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. It's once again liberation day in washington, D.C. today.
▶ 0:34:42We will take steps to end the lawlessness in our nation's capital. Article one, section eight, clause 17 of the us constitution, also known as the enclave clause, established the district of columbia as a seat of the federal government. Furthermore, under the constitution's district clause, congress retains ultimate responsibility for the government of the district of columbia. Very important. Yet, in recent years, the D.C.
▶ 0:35:08Council has advanced a series of dangerous soft on crime measures to weaken law enforcement and ignore public safety. My bill, h.r. 5083, the district of columbia home rule improvement act, will restore congress's power over D.C. given to us by president nixon and the home rule act of 1973. This 1973 law created a review period giving congress the ability to block bills in the federal district through a resolution in the house and the senate signed by the president.
▶ 0:35:37My bill improves this process and mimics the congressional review act that we all know and love. Now, h.r. 1583 makes simple fixes to improve congress's oversight of D.C. it gives congress a uniform 60 days to review D.C. laws. It provides expedited procedures for resolutions to pass both house and avoid both houses and avoid stalemates. We've seen in the past establishing safeguards on D.C.
▶ 0:36:00Emergency procedures by preventing the council from extending, extending emergency waivers of congressional review to pass non-emergency laws. It expands congressional review to line item provisions of D.C. laws, mayoral executive orders, and regulations. It empowers every member of congress with the same ability to move a resolution of disapproval out of the committee. It promotes efficient governance by preventing the D.C.
▶ 0:36:26Council from passing legislation similar to those that have already been repealed by congress. And finally, it requires accountability from both the D.C. government and this committee through an annual report to congress and hearing. Unfortunately, the D.C. council has shown time and time again it cannot be trusted with to put public safety first. In fact, congress has oversight of D.C. home rule is not new.
▶ 0:36:53In 2023, congress exercised its constitutional authority over D.C. laws to block an anti-police bill. Not surprisingly, bleeding heart joe biden vetoed the resolution back in 2015. The house passed another resolution to overturn a district of columbia pro abortion bill, but it died in the senate after running out of time. My bill reflects longstanding conservative principles upholding the constitution, defending law and order, and ensuring the federal government fulfills its duty to safeguard the nation's capital.
▶ 0:37:22We are here today at this hearing because D.C. reckless policies make our jobs inconvenient. We are here as friends, parents and grandparents in my case, to address violence in the city. Hardworking americans should be able to visit our nation's capital without fear of harm. Interns and staff should be able to walk the streets of washington and see washington, D.C. and feel safe from career. Violent criminals repeatedly set free. Clearly, the D.C.
▶ 0:37:48Government recognizes it needed the president's help because it established a juvenile curfew and issued a mayoral executive order to facilitate a local, federal federal police partnership. We need to do better and do a better job, and my bill is a solution. I look forward to working with the president, chairman comer and my colleagues to fight back against this D.C. disorder. My bill, h.r.
▶ 0:38:115083, district of columbia home rule improvement act, acts on congress's authority to update the home rule act with common sense oversight abilities. I ask my colleagues to support support for my bill, h.r. 5083, and I yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes, uh, miss norton from washington, D.C. >> thank you, mister chairman. Uh, I strongly oppose this bill. It is profoundly.
▶ 0:38:41It is a profoundly harmful bill masquerading as a congressional procedure bill. In fact, it is one of the biggest reductions in the district of columbia's authority since congress passed the home rule act in 1973.
▶ 0:39:04Unlike many of the bills we are considering today, this bill does not amend or repeal, uh, a law enacted by D.C. instead, it imposes a significant new limits on the authority of both the D.C. mayor and council to govern.
▶ 0:39:26I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters opposing this bill from D.C. mayor muriel bowser and the entire D.C. council and the D.C. attorney general brian schwab. >> without objection, so ordered. >> this bill limits the mayor's authority to respond to emergencies.
▶ 0:39:52Under the bill, an executive order or regulation issued by the mayor takes effect after a 60 legislative day congressional period, unless a disapproval resolution is enacted during that period.
▶ 0:40:11This means the mayor no longer can implement an executive order or regulation immediately, no matter how urgent it might be, such as it is in response to civil unrest or a public health emergency.
▶ 0:40:36This bill limits the council's authority to legislate in an emergency under the home rule act. An emergency bill takes effect immediately and remains in effect up to 90 days. Under this bill, however, a successive emergency bill enacted by D.C.
▶ 0:41:01Takes effect after a 60 day legislative day congressional review period, unless a disapproval resolution is enacted during that period. The new rule rules.
▶ 0:41:15Uh, this bill establishes for a successive emergency bill can prevent the council from responding to emergency, uh, to an emergency that lasts more than 90 days, depending on the congressional calendar.
▶ 0:41:35In addition, the council often uses successive emergency bills to fill gaps in law caused by the congressional review period for the temporary and permanent versions of an emergency bill.
▶ 0:41:57While the home rule act is silent on this matter, the courts have long said that the council has this authority. This bill takes effect, takes away, uh, this authority. In practice, this means D.C. laws will change constantly.
▶ 0:42:18Laws will expire only to be revised, uh, only to be revived when the congressional review period for a bill ends. Adding to the chaos, this bill gives congress a line item veto during the congressional review period for bills enacted by D.C.
▶ 0:42:47Currently, disapproval resolutions can only. Can only disapprove an entire bill. This bill permits a disapproval resolution on individual provisions of a bill under the home rule act.
▶ 0:43:10It is easier procedurally for congress to disapprove a criminal bill enacted by D.C. than a civil bill enacted by D.C. uh, this bill makes the duration of the congressional review bureau for civil.
▶ 0:43:32Civil bill and the procedure for a disapproval resolution on a civil bill, the same as those that currently apply to a criminal bill.
▶ 0:43:48Under this bill, the congressional review period for a civil bill which is currently 30 legislative days, is 60 legislative days and a disapproval resolution for civil bill is eligible for a motion to discharge a confirmation.
▶ 0:44:16A I'm sorry to discharge from committee, which is currently which is currently is not. I urge my colleagues to see this bill for what it is, for what it really is, and vote no. I yield back the. >> gentlelady yields back. Do any other member I know? Mr. uh, bell seeks recognitions. Any chair recognizes Mr. biggs. Then we'll go to Mr. bell. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 0:44:45And, uh, I support the bill. And I would just point out what makes D.C. different than any other municipality in the country. So you can stand and say, I was mayor of san bernardino, whatever it is, but there is no other municipality in the country that is addressed in article one, section eight and article one, section eight, describing the district of columbia, says that congress's congress shall have power to
▶ 0:45:19Exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district. Reference the district of columbia. That is different than any other municipality in the country, and I'll just continue on over such district as may, by cession of particular states and the acceptance of congress, become the seat of the government of the united states, which is exactly what the district of columbia is.
▶ 0:45:45And to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state, in which the same shall be. That's what makes it unique, and that's what makes congress have the authority. That's what grants congress the authority to actually legislate in the district of columbia. That's what's unique about it.
▶ 0:46:13You've chosen to live in the most unique city, perhaps in the world, where the federal government has authority to legislate within your municipality. There's no other jurisdiction in the country that we that we can say that about. No other municipal jurisdiction.
▶ 0:46:32And thus, um, when things seem to be out of control or not going well, congress has exclusive legislation. That's what the constitution says. And you can disregard that. You may not like that. I'm sorry. We everybody on this dais took an oath to adhere to the constitution of the united states of america. And that's right in the constitution.
▶ 0:47:00You want to change, you gotta change the constitution. With that, I'll yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from arizona, Mr. gosar. >> I thank the gentleman from arizona. Now, we just heard that this, this home, this this new bill, 5183, restricts the ability of the mayor's to respond to emergencies. This is blatantly false. The district of columbia home rule improvement act does not prohibit the D.C. council or the mayor from passing emergency legislation with waivers from the congressional review.
▶ 0:47:30It prohibits the extension until reviewed. It prohibits the extension until review is done. So once again, we're hearing the sky is falling, the sky is falling. But as my, uh, my colleague from arizona talked about, this is a unique city, a very unique city, and you chose to live in it. And now what we have to do is we have to make sure that it everybody profits from this.
▶ 0:47:57Everybody has a right to, to, to, uh, to be safe, to expect to be able to walk and enjoy the city. So there needs to be accountability. The other thing is, is everything was put for 60 days because what that is just a uniform aspect, because congress wasn't doing its due diligence on the 30 day aspect. So from that standpoint, that's why we went to a consolidated 60 day review.
▶ 0:48:20So with that being said, uh, I hope that the misnomers are being laid out and that everybody can vote for this. And so I will yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes Mr. bell from missouri. >> thank you, mister chair. Um.
▶ 0:48:43>> first of all, I associate myself with my colleague, representative norton, who I think, um, made an eloquent argument. Um, on on why this bill is, um, is, um, not in the interest of, of dc or in democracy, which is what I want to talk about. And my colleague on the other side referred to it as liberation day.
▶ 0:49:10And I'm really scratching my head here like it's literally the opposite of liberation. Um, remember that whole thing about no taxation without representation? We literally fought a war over it to ensure that, folks, one man, one woman, one vote. Um, and so we can look at article one, section eight.
▶ 0:49:37But let's not forget that the default in our us, in our constitution is democracy. Um, it just seems like a very, um, um. Inauthentic argument to say that washington dc is unique, but washington, dc is unique because you made it that way and you continue to vote in a manner to keep it in this way
▶ 0:50:08To to keep, um, folks in dc from, um, b from having statehood or enjoying the rights, um, that the other states, um, in the country, um, enjoy.
▶ 0:50:22And what we've seen is historically, when governments want to take power, when governments want to usurp a the government that's in place, they always will come up with these justifications or, or put these spins on it to make it sound like they're for the people, when in fact they are against the people, because the people in dc have voted for what they want in their government and their, um, law enforcement and, and things of
▶ 0:50:54That nature. And so, you know, my god, I understand that you've been given talking points, but for god's sakes, at least make it make sense. This is not liberation. This is literally the opposite by definition of liberation. I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Uh, chair recognizes Mr. higgins from louisiana. Then Mr. uh, superman will be next. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 0:51:21To to address the the gentleman's points regarding the the means by which our nation's capital is, is governed and populated and and the unique interaction with, uh, with, with the seat of government as it was envisioned by our, our founders and enshrined in our constitution as the gentleman
▶ 0:51:52From arizona clarified, our founders discussed for the you know, for my young colleagues benefit. I'm sure he knows he's a very educated man. And I'm certain you've read the federalist papers and the private discussions of our founders. And they talked about this. They talked about we were to create the seat of government of of our of a new republic born.
▶ 0:52:21And where the the capital city of the united states would, would be built and centered. What would what would be the what would be the rules there? What would be the dimensions? What would be the construct of what was envisioned as a capital city of our republic?
▶ 0:52:47And the founders discussed, you know, representation according to the as compared to apportionment for the states. And what would happen when, when, when, when the capital of our nation, which no doubt would become a density of population, which it has. They were right.
▶ 0:53:08What would happen regarding the representative rights of those citizens if they did not have the standard apportionment of, say, a sovereign state? And and the founders talked about that not only.
▶ 0:53:28The the unique relationship of, of united states congress with our nation's capital and our our responsibility and our, our our rights to be involved in the governance of the nation's capital city. But the unique rights and access to government for the residents of D.C.
▶ 0:53:51Only in washington, dc, is the only city in the united states where where where the resident of that city can interact with the entire seat of your national government with a sign in your yard while walking your dog in the evening, or enjoying a meal, maybe sitting next to congressmen and senators,
▶ 0:54:21Members of the executive branch, senior judges in article three, senior bureaucrats from the seat of our government, the the citizens of phoenix or new orleans or new york, don't enjoy that access. This.
▶ 0:54:34The founders discussed this, and if you haven't read it, I suggest that you do, because it was clearly recognized that that dc was going to have a unique role to play for the entire republic and the and the citizens of the envisioned capital city would enjoy a special access to
▶ 0:55:06Government to be uniquely represented. And and there had to be a balance. Which is why our founding document was constructed as it was, and the writ of our constitution addressed the capital city no matter that it did. And these in these laws were enshrined. And here we are today.
▶ 0:55:31We have a responsibility as the people's house to be sometimes involved at a greater level in the operations of our nation's capital. This is the way. The nation's capitals governance was envisioned.
▶ 0:55:54It it has been an interesting and interesting ride for 200 years, and here we are today. You know, we're doing our best. Respectfully, to my colleagues across the aisle, I would hope that you could step back and support these series of legislative efforts to help dc today. Mister chairman, I yield. >> chairman yields chair. Mr. silberman from virginia. >> uh, thank you, mister chair.
▶ 0:56:26Uh, I feel like we're talking past each other a little bit. I understand that this is in the constitution, that congress has oversight over dc. What I don't understand is why we're asking for line item vetoes of dc legislation. Not even the mayor has that power right now. We're making individual members of congress more powerful than the mayor of dc over dc matters. No dc resident elected any of us. They had the ability to elect their mayor instead, though, under dc council.
▶ 0:56:54And the second thing that we're doing here is we're extending the congressional review period. I don't understand why we have to do that. Why isn't 30 days enough? Why isn't the current process enough? There's a dc law you don't like. Well, we have several other bills here to address all the laws that the majority on this committee don't like today. Why isn't that enough? I think what if you sat in the coffee shops and restaurants of dc and had residents have special access to you, you'll see that they're not happy with what this is because they had no say in what this is what's happening today.
▶ 0:57:24And so I understand congress's power over dc. What I don't understand is why we have to take extreme measures. Uh, I think I do understand it's political. It seems. Right. It's in reaction to political desires. But I don't think this is good for the city. I certainly don't think this is good for safety. It's not going to help anything, in my opinion. I'm going to yield over to gentleman, Mr. bell from missouri. >> thank you.
▶ 0:57:47Um, and if we're going to talk about history, we can't just cherry pick which history we're going to talk about. Um, many of our states were initially territory territories, um, and many of those territories became states from negotiations, from compromises, many over the slavery issue.
▶ 0:58:09Um, and and so when we're talking about, um, dc and leaving it in this box as if it can't evolve to where the people have actual representation, as my colleague pointed out.
▶ 0:58:30Um, the argument goes against democratic principles that folks here are being, um, are policies are being implemented by people that were not, in fact, voted by them, which is unique, but not in a good way.
▶ 0:58:49So we can't really talk about the history without understanding, um, how that history evolved and how different states evolved, um, from territories. And you brought up the federalist papers. Um, and so let's talk about that in federalist 43.
▶ 0:59:10James madison said, and I quote a municipal legislature for local purposes derived from their own suffrages will, of course, be allowed them. So when we look at our constitution, which intended that we be a democratic nation, which I think we all agree on when we look at the federalist papers and when we just look at what is aligned with our values.
▶ 0:59:35Um, I think the answer is clear, and that folks in dc should be afforded the same rights that every other american is afforded across this great nation. I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Does any other member seek recognition? Seeing none, the question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying I, I.
▶ 1:00:02All those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. The question is now on favorably reporting h.r. 5183, as amended. All those in favor signify by saying I. I, all those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the bill is ordered favorably reported as amended. A recorded vote is ordered as previously announced.
▶ 1:00:31Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Our next item for consideration is h.r. 2693, the district of columbia electronic transmittal of legislation act. The clerk will please designate the bill. >> h.r. 2693. The district of columbia electronic transmittal of legislation act, a bill to amend the district of columbia home rule act to permit the chairman of the council of the district of columbia to transmit acts of the district of columbia to congress in electronic form.
▶ 1:00:59>> without objection, the bill should be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Without objection so ordered. The chair recognizes himself to order an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk will designate the amendment. >> an amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 2693 is offered by Mr. comer of kentucky. >> without objection, the amendment is considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as original text. For the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize myself for five minutes for a statement on the bill and amendment. I am pleased to support h.r. 2693, which authorizes the electronic transfer of D.C.
▶ 1:01:28Council legislative action to congress for review. The current requirement for the hand delivery of physical copies of D.C. council legislation has created delays in receiving documents and inconsistent timelines between the house and senate for commencing the congressional review period under the home rule act. This legislation will also save taxpayer dollars and free up staff time in both the district and congress.
▶ 1:01:53I thank representative norton for introducing this common sense legislation, and urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill. I now recognize the ranking member for his statement. >> thank you, chairman kilmer. I also want to first just say and thank congresswoman norton for this legislation. We, of course, democrats strongly support any opportunities to modernize government in a way that makes it more efficient and centers the residents.
▶ 1:02:18This bill would amend the district of columbia home rule act, as well as the house and senate rules, to permit the chair of the council of D.C. to transmit local laws or acts of D.C. to congress in electronic form. Now, currently, house and senate practice requires any acts to be passed by the council and delivered an actual physical hard format copy.
▶ 1:02:39This, of course, is outdated and can be costly, allowing the council to transmit acts of congress electronically is a common sense efficiency for the modern era. It reduced the time and effort required by both council and congressional staff to deliver, receive and process those acts. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. norton, for this legislation, and I thank the chairman for being a co-sponsor. It's good to have a bipartisan bill in front of us today. This is a reasonable, good government effort by our committee and should be engaged in.
▶ 1:03:09I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation and I yield back. >> I now recognize the chairman of the are the sponsor of the legislation, Mr. norton, for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I thank chairman comer for co-sponsoring and marking up this bill.
▶ 1:03:32This bill brings the congressional review process for the legislation enacted by D.C. into the electronic age, by allowing the chair of the D.C. council to transmit legislation to congress electronically. The D.C. government supports this bill.
▶ 1:03:56The home rule act requires the chair of the council to transmit a bill to congress for review period before it can take effect. A bill takes effect after the review period, unless a resolution of disapproval is enacted. During that period.
▶ 1:04:18The home rule act is silent on the form of transmittal, but congress has always required bills to be transmitted physically. Electronic records are recognized as valid under the federal and state.
▶ 1:04:39On the federal and state law, and the federal government and state and local governments conduct official business electronically. Federal agencies transmit regulations and other documents to the federal register electronically.
▶ 1:05:01Congress already conducts some official business electronically. For example, the house permits members, including acting through their staff, to introduce legislation and submit statements to the congressional record electronically.
▶ 1:05:27The requirement that the council transmit. Bills physically imposes unnecessary costs on D.C. the council engages in a 12 step process to transmit bills, including printing two copies of each bill and committee reports, arranging a time for
▶ 1:05:59Delivery of these documents to the offices of the speaker and president of the senate, and having two staffers drive the to the capitol to deliver the documents. Two are required because of parking requirements and restrictions. The requirement that the council transmit these bills physically also imposes unnecessary costs on congress.
▶ 1:06:29The following congressional offices and committees are involved in the transmission transmittal progress. The offices of the speaker and the president of the senate, the house and senate. Parliamentarians. The house clerk, the senate secretary.
▶ 1:06:53Uh, this committee and the senate committee on homeland security and government affairs. The difficulty the council has transmitting bills physically during, uh.
▶ 1:07:10Had transmitting physical bills during the pandemic and the january 6th highlights the need for electronic transmittal. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. Do any other member seek recognition on the bill? Seeing none.
▶ 1:07:42>> um. >> the question is on the amendment. The question is now on the amendment. In the nature of a substitute, all those in favor signify by saying I. All those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. The question is now on favorably reporting h.r. 2693, as amended. All those in favor signify by saying I, I all those opposed signify by saying no.
▶ 1:08:11In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The bill is ordered favorably reported, as amended. A recorded vote is ordered by Mr. gosar as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Our next item for consideration is h.r. 5000 103. Make the district of columbia safe again, or make the district of columbia safe and beautiful act. The clerk will please designate the bill. >> h.r.
▶ 1:08:355103, a bill to establish a program to beautify the district of columbia and establish the district of columbia safe and beautiful commission. >> without objection, the bill should be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Without objection, so ordered. The chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment. The nature of substitute. The clerk will designate the amendment. >> an amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 5103, as offered by Mr. comer of kentucky. >> without objection, the minutes considered as read the substitute will be considered as original text for the purposes of further amendment.
▶ 1:09:03I recognize myself for five minutes for a statement on the bill and the amendment. I support this legislation, which codifies core components of president trump's executive order 1425 two to require the formation of a D.C. safe and beautiful commission. The dc safe and beautiful commission, made up of key federal law enforcement, will be focused on ensuring full enforcement of federal and local laws in the district. The commission will develop recommendations on how to prioritize the safety of the district's residents and visitors. The bill also requires the development and implementation of dc beautification plan.
▶ 1:09:33Key federal and local leaders will be tasked with coordinating the cleanliness of the district's facilities, infrastructure, and parks. These leaders will also work to restore federal public monuments, statues, markers and similar properties that have been defaced. I thank representative maguire for leading this bill that will further congressional backing to the president's executive actions, and I urge all my colleagues to support the maguire legislation. I now recognize the ranking member for his statement. >> thank you. Chairman.
▶ 1:10:00We democrats strongly oppose the make the district of columbia safe and beautiful act as another attempt to limit dc's home rule and its own governance over its own laws and community. Now, this bill establishes a federal commission with sweeping authority over local matters that should be decided by dc residents and their elected representatives. The people of dc need more ability to make their own future and control their own community, not less.
▶ 1:10:29Now, as my colleagues know from their home districts, public safety priorities belong in local hands, not dictated by administration. That won't put dc or its communities first. Now, we know that federal resources and cooperation certainly can be valuable to a city, but this commission is really not about supporting dc residents. This legislation explicitly directs the commission to push D.C.
▶ 1:10:52To adopt the administration's mass deportation agenda, which has caused chaos throughout our country and here in the district as well. We do not need to be supporting efforts where mass men are kidnaping people and residents off the streets, not just here in the district, but across the country.
▶ 1:11:11And this bill, which talks about beautifying dc, is explicitly linked to a mass deportation agenda, trying to enshrine that here in the district of columbia. These policies, we know, actually undermine public safety. When hard working immigrants fear deportation, they are less likely to report crimes. That is also a fact, and everyone becomes less safe as a result.
▶ 1:11:37The hard working men and women that are working in the restaurants, in dc's cooking, working hard at car washes, gardening, doing the hard work, oftentimes at others may not want to do deserve respect and not to be living in this community in fear. Now, republicans used to be the party of respecting state and local authority, but now you're advocating for a long term plan to give donald trump power over the wishes of its residents. According to a recent poll, 80% of D.C.
▶ 1:12:06Residents oppose president trump's control of D.C. police and the surge of federal troops patrolling the streets. 80%. None of our republican colleagues would accept that level of federal micromanagement in their districts. If we were serious about making D.C. more safe and beautiful, we wouldn't stop D.C.
▶ 1:12:27From spending its own tax revenue, which republicans did earlier this year, blocking $1 billion in dc funds from being spent, money that could actually be spent making the district more beautiful and safe as is. As this bill says it's attempting to do now, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation and instead support real partnership and respecting the local needs and democratic principles of the local elected officials who are actually working to make this community more safe and secure.
▶ 1:12:58And with that, Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. I now recognize the sponsor of the bill. Uh, representative maguire. >> thank you. >> Mr. chairman. As a father of five, as a navy seal veteran, my number one priority in congress is to keep the american people safe at home and abroad. Now, I've heard someone say that this was extreme measures, but I think people dying in the bottom line, Mr. chairman, is people were dying way too much in the district of columbia.
▶ 1:13:26The american dream is to live, work and raise your family in peace regardless of race, party, religion or creed. You should be able to walk down any street in america with your little girl or little boy and be safe. You should be able to get on the subway. You should be able to ride a bicycle or drive your car. And I've seen in the news where a woman said, it's the first time in D.C. in ten years where she feels safe driving with her windows down. I think many of us remember the newly engaged couple that was killed outside the israeli embassy.
▶ 1:13:56We all know about the 21 year old staffer who was, uh, shot in a drive by. Bottom line is people are dying. So this is, uh, this is not extreme. This is required. We must keep the american people safe. My bill to make the district of columbia safe and beautiful act codifies president trump's executive order 14252 and ensures our nation's capital is clean, safe, and beautiful.
▶ 1:14:19Our nation's capital is a direct reflection of our great country, and should be a symbol of pride for the american people and a safe and beautiful location for all to reside and visit. Unfortunately, years of soft on crime policies have turned washington, D.C. into a city of high crime rates, rampant homelessness and graffiti on historic buildings and monuments. In 2024, D.C.
▶ 1:14:41Had the fourth highest homicide rate in the country, and since the beginning of 2025, there have already been over 1600 violent crimes reported in our nation's capital. Since president trump cracked down on crime. In D.C. violent crime is down 45%. I wish I'd see folks on the other side talk about all the lives have been saved. Carjackings have decreased 87%.
▶ 1:15:09We've heard of minors coming in from maryland with a gun hijacking cars. It's down 87%. Why couldn't they do that before trump got here? And overall crime has dropped 15%. There have been 2120 arrests, 20 of which were gang members. Why do you want to protect gang members? These statistics prove that law and order works. We should keep the american people safe.
▶ 1:15:31My bill codifies many elements of president trump's successful executive order until 2029, ensuring there isn't a backslide into lawlessness in the city. This bill is not partizan. It is common sense. And this should not be based on democrat, republican or independent should be based on common sense and keeping you alive. One our nation's capital be safe is not political. It is the best interest of all who travel to and call washington, D.C. their home.
▶ 1:15:59I urge all my colleagues on this committee to vote in favor of my bill and take a stand to make D.C. safe and beautiful, and with that, I yield back. >> the gentleman yields back chair. And as miss norton from washington, D.C. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I strongly oppose the make the district of columbia safe and beautiful act. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters opposing this bill from D.C.
▶ 1:16:27Mayor muriel bowser. The entire D.C. council and D.C. attorney general brian schwab. >> without objection. So ordered. >> first, this bill disparages D.C. and perpetuates the misinformation and disinformation the trump administration and republicans in congress have spread about the safety and beauty of D.C.
▶ 1:16:57I encourage tourists to continue to visit D.C. and businesses and people to continue to move this wonderful city. D.C. is a world class city, full stop. Second, the bill establishes a commission and tasks its with several functions. I oppose.
▶ 1:17:30For example, the commission is directed to develop and encourage the implementation of policies that, quote will direct the maximum of enforcement in federal migration immigration law within the district of columbia, including policies to encourage the duction of available federal, state, or local law
▶ 1:18:02Enforcement resources to apprehend and deport illegal aliens. Close quote. The last thing D.C. needs is more. May last I ice agents terrorizing communities, separating families and shuttering the community. Trust needed for effective local policing.
▶ 1:18:31If the federal government wants to improve D.C. it should start by investing in the assets it owns here. For example, 90% of parkland in D.C. is owned by the federal government.
▶ 1:18:52While I strongly support the mission of the national park service, and it is and its employees, the agency is grossly underfunded and its deferred maintenance backlog in D.C. alone is more than 1.5 billion, with a b dollars.
▶ 1:19:15The national park service has lost a quarter of its employees, either through firings or resignations during the trump administration, the administration's fiscal year, fiscal year 26 budget required the largest funding cut in the history of the national park service.
▶ 1:19:44I urge a no vote on this bill. I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. Does any other member seek recognition on the on the bill? >> Mr. chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. >> okay. Do you all want to speak now before Mr. bell files amendment? Okay. Mr. all right. I'm going to recognize Mr. higgins, and we'll go. Miss randall, I. >> just want to note that I.
▶ 1:20:11I support my colleague's bill here. I just want to clarify. This is a a a law enforcement positive and enforcement of law centric bill. It is establishes a commission that covers that covers a broad spectrum of the federal government involvement.
▶ 1:20:37The department of transportation, the department of the interior, department of homeland security, federal bureau of investigation, united states marshal service, the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives, united states attorney's office for the district of columbia, the united states attorney's office for the district of maryland, the united states attorney's office for eastern district of virginia, and the functions.
▶ 1:21:06The number one function, a function of the committee to recommend actions and review the effectiveness of such actions with respect to the following. It goes on to cite several things, but a key function of of the commission that this legislation would create is to work in collaboration with its leadership in union, ensuring the metropolitan police department and the district of columbia is provided with
▶ 1:21:37Assistance to facilitate the recruitment, retention and capabilities of its officers. No regular american, looking back in our nation's capital say, why would anyone in our nation's capital reject such a thing? Why would you reject the idea of having the federal government coordinate with the D.C.
▶ 1:22:05Metropolitan police department to assist them to facilitate in recruitment, retention, and capabilities of its officers to fight crime in in your city? So, Mr. chairman, I support this this bill. And I just wanted to take this moment to clarify that this is a law enforcement centric bill. It will help the district of columbia.
▶ 1:22:34And I encourage my colleagues to support the bill I yield. >> gentleman yields back. Uh, chair recognizes miss randall. >> thank you. Um, Mr. chair, you know, this bill might sound reasonable on the surface, but when we dig in to what it actually does, it's about forcing local communities to abandon policies that keep their residents safe and protected.
▶ 1:23:01Despite the words safe and beautiful being in the title, the devil is in the details. And the american people have seen the ugly, dangerous impacts of another bill that included beautiful in the title not so long ago. This bill would compel D.C. to coordinate and operate with federal immigration officers.
▶ 1:23:23Here's what happens when local authorities are forced to do immigration enforcement instead of focusing on their actual job keeping us safe on the olympic peninsula. In my district, we are currently fighting the largest active fire in washington state, with another fire sparking over the weekend. The bear gulch fire is estimated to be more than 10,000 acres and under 9% contained.
▶ 1:23:51Wildland firefighting is one of the most dangerous and critical public safety duties, and I applaud the hardworking crew members who put their lives on the line to perform these life saving duties, staying for two weeks at a time in tents in a field, leaving their family their day jobs to do this work to keep our communities safer.
▶ 1:24:10And yet, on august 27th, instead of being able to conduct their critical work, 44 crew members were forced to stand in line for hours, mostly brown skinned crew members, to show their ids to immigration enforcement. Customs and border patrol arrested two crew members, and dozens more were pulled away from performing fuel management during an active wildfire.
▶ 1:24:37It's absolutely unacceptable that these resources were diverted and that non-critical personnel from customs and border patrol were allowed to enter a restricted fire area without carrying red cards. Local communities know what works for their residents. This bill takes that choice away and makes all of us less safe. That's why I'm voting no, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well. I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member.
▶ 1:25:08>> yield back, Mr. chairman. >> does any other member seek recognition? Uh, miss stansbury from new mexico. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Um, first of all, I want to say welcome to the people of washington, D.C. who have flooded this hearing room on a day in which we are hearing a set of bills that have not so much as had a single public hearing.
▶ 1:25:34Let me just emphasize that not a single bill in this docket has had a public hearing as of yet, and I don't think that it is any mistake that this markup to vote these bills out of committee is happening on the last day that donald trump has ordered our nation's national guard to occupy this city. There are no coincidences here, folks.
▶ 1:26:00So I have some questions for the chairman, because we don't actually have witnesses here to testify about these bills. So my first question for you, Mr. chairman, is where did these bills come from? Where did this package come from? >> we've been talking about these bills for a year now. And you know that, miss stansbury. >> but why is this package being brought forward today? >> this is a markup. That's when you vote on bills.
▶ 1:26:26>> I understand the congressional procedure, but why is this committee marking up a set of bills today without a hearing? Did the president ask you to do this with. >> we're debating the bills as we speak. That's what a markup is. >> Mr. comer, did the president ask? >> I haven't talked to the president. >> was this markup called pursuant to the president's occupation of washington, D.C. >> we've had this markup on the books for a long time. >> and so there's there there was.
▶ 1:26:55>> no coordination with participating in a markup. >> no coordination with the white house on this markup. >> I haven't talked to the white house, but I'm I mean. >> so you didn't. >> consult with the white house. We support the president's. >> you didn't consult with the white house on the development of a bill that would create the actual entity that he said he wanted. There was no coordination with the white house on this. >> we support what the president's done. We've sat back and watched and we've seen the crime rates go down significantly in washington, dc. And we want to make sure that crime stays down in washington, dc.
▶ 1:27:25But if you don't like the bill, you can vote against it. >> no, I'm asking you a question because we haven't heard this bill. Did this bill was this bill drafted in coordination with the white house? I'm asking the question. >> it's not my bill. >> okay. Does the sponsor want to answer that question? >> I would say that we we support president trump. And bottom line. >> just a simple question. Did you coordinate with the white house? >> people are dying in washington dc. >> why can't. >> you has been cleaned up. >> Mr. chairman, we need order.
▶ 1:27:55We need order. Mr. chairman. >> just a question. >> did this isn't a debate. With Mr. chairman? We need order. >> is the debate. That is. >> exactly what the markup. >> is, my dear. This is a debate over the bill. >> this should be common sense. We're just trying to keep the american people safe. They're dying in dc. >> I just. >> asked you, and we are looking at president trump's plan has worked. >> washington, D.C. >> we are going to codify with president trump did to keep the american people safe. Okay. I don't care if you're democrat, republican or independent. We love you, but we've got to keep you safe.
▶ 1:28:25>> okay, let me ask you another question. I'm going to ask the sponsor this question. Have you ever been inside of city hall? Yes or no? >> I have not. >> have you ever attended a city council meeting here in washington, D.C. >> I have spoken with people all over. You ever attended a city council. >> meeting here in washington, D.C. >> and they thank us that they can walk down the street and walk their dog and ride on a subway without getting stabbed. >> did you consult with the. >> mayor or a drive. >> by, or any members of. >> law enforcement coming.
▶ 1:28:56>> out of baltimore. >> and other places, because they know the laws are too lax here and it's not safe? >> I'm asking the sponsor of this bill, did you consult with the mayor or the city council in the development of this bill? >> I consulted with the people of washington, D.C. >> you did. Can you tell us some of who you consulted with? >> john? Congress has jurisdiction over washington. >> can you tell us who you consulted with, sir? >> congress has jurisdiction over washington, D.C. but I. >> am asking you a very simple question. Who did you consult with? Did you consult with?
▶ 1:29:26>> I just answered you, but. >> did you consult with the law enforcement of washington, D.C. >> I talked to police officers as well. Yes. >> I'm asking the. >> I spoke with law enforcement. I spoke with restaurant owners. I spoke with people walking their dogs all around D.C. >> oh, you you. >> and they said, thank god, thank god we can walk down the street without being stabbed or mugged and be part of a drive by. I can't believe a democrat republican, anybody would not like this common sense legislation. >> do you live. >> in the washington safe? >> do you live in the washington, D.C. gentlelady? >> we're all here. I'm asking.
▶ 1:29:57I've been here nine. >> months, a resident of washington, D.C. >> our colleague from louisiana, sir. >> I'm still I have my time here. I'm asking the sponsor of the bill. You have debate time on your own. There's plenty of time to debate. Do you live here in the city of. >> washington, here in D.C. representing our districts across the country? >> exactly. >> we have jurisdiction over washington. >> exactly my point. If you wanted to run for mayor of washington, D.C. then you can move to washington and run in a democratic, free and fair election. Time's expired, actually. >> ladies time's expired.
▶ 1:30:26Any other member seek recognition. >> Mr. chairman? I'd like to. Mr. chairman. >> higgins. >> I'd just like to say that I'm. I'm. I'm glad that the gentlelady just performed in the manner that she did. Because america is watching and and it it exhibited like this.
▶ 1:30:58Display your display, good lady. And I'm, I'm quite sure you're a wonderful person and your family loves you. You and I don't really know each other, so I, I don't mean this in a personal way. I'm just observing that you're that you're display. >> this time. >> you're. Thank you for enhancing the point I'm about to make.
▶ 1:31:23You're you're display demonstrates exactly the sort of elitist, arrogant tone that americans across the country are going to recognize as the hallmark of your party.
▶ 1:31:38So we sit back and and I would give you yield my entire time to you to carry on like that, like to demonstrate to the american people this is what the democrat party. >> yield your time. >> I'm happy to take. >> our time elitism. >> and as you stated to me, good lady, you can have your own debate time. Mr. chairman, I yield. >> would you yield a minute to me? I have a question.
▶ 1:32:08The have a question. >> the the Mr. higgins yields back and I, I just want to make sure everyone knows Mr. higgins spent his career in law enforcement. Mr. maguire was a navy seal, and I think they're sincere in their efforts. And what we've seen over the last three weeks and the massive reduction in crime in washington, dc. And I appreciate their, their, uh, opinion and words of advice.
▶ 1:32:35And, uh, just wanted to make sure everyone knew what we were dealing with here. Now, does any other member seek recognition, Mr. frost? >> no, I just have a question for my colleague from the state of louisiana, because I'm curious as to where your bill is. Louisiana is the state with the second highest rate of deaths in this nation. You are more likely to be shot standing on a random street in your state than you are in washington, D.C.
▶ 1:33:03So my question is, where's your bill for the occupation of the state of louisiana to keep your people safe? If you're at all sincere in this. >> gentleman, yield for an answer. >> I yield for an answer. >> I support state rights. I'm a constitutionalist. >> but not D.C. >> stand by. As a constitutionalist, I support my state, my sovereign state's legislature, which is doing everything it can to push back upon the crime rate of the democrat controlled cities.
▶ 1:33:33>> okay, so I'll I'll take my time back. I'll take my time back. >> that's the rules. That's the rules. >> I'll take my. >> time back. >> I'll take my time back. So you only invoke the rules when when other people are speaking, not when you're speaking. Okay. That's your time. I agree with you. Look, I'm for state sovereignty. So what do you think about california? >> in california is not where I live. You're asking me about my state. >> so you. >> you only. >> care. >> and. >> I'll reclaim. >> my time. >> I'll reclaim my time.
▶ 1:34:00I will reclaim my time. The gentleman will stop speaking. I will reclaim my time. >> you're more likely to be shot standing in. >> a random street in your state. This is than anywhere in. >> washington, D.C. and you're here because you're lapdogs. >> to the president. >> of the united states, who during the election last year. >> we said time and. >> time again, I reclaim. >> my time. >> Mr. chairman. >> all right. Hold on.
▶ 1:34:31>> my colleague just called me a lapdog for the president of the united states. I move for his word to be taken down. >> a second standing. >> we'll stand in, uh. Uh, recess for a second here. We will suspend to see about taking the words down. >> we'll go through. Yeah. So.
▶ 1:35:08And so we can go right back in. We'll walk through the front.
▶ 1:35:39I'm sorry. >> Mr. chairman. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my remark.
▶ 1:36:07>> gentleman's, uh, ask you to ask to withdraw his remarks. Without objection. So ordered. We will proceed with the debate. The words were taken down, and, uh. >> I will continue with the reminder. >> point of order. >> three minutes. Uh, well. Okay. Point of order. >> my my point was that Mr. frost has a right to his time. >> yeah, I. >> I unobstructed time an opportunity to speak.
▶ 1:36:30And I think if we afforded him that right under the rules, then we wouldn't have this back and forth. >> that's fine. He started by asking if people would yield to a question. I think that's how it all started. >> reclaimed his time at least. A half a dozen times. >> three minutes. >> well, you know, I don't. >> have to because. >> I've given. >> him three minutes. >> running this. >> hearing, sir. >> okay. >> I'm not a spectator. >> okay. You got three minutes, Mr. frost. Go ahead.
▶ 1:36:58>> this body is full of lapdogs doing and doing exactly what the president wants when he wants it, not pushing back. And what we just heard this exchange with, with me and my colleague is indicative of the problem here. You don't none of you know anything about washington, D.C.
▶ 1:37:16You're talking about a so-called, you know, walking down the street and talking with people on the on the, uh, that are walking their dogs, people in the restaurants you go to, uh, which might not be full of people from D.C. anyway. And it's just sad. It is sad. We need D.C. statehood. There are people. Yes, we need D.C. statehood. We need to put this behind us. We need to stop.
▶ 1:37:46You know, it's wild to me that we're here debating with people from the republican party, a party that's supposed to be about states rights and local rule and people, the consent of the governed, which is fundamental to our constitution and this country. But before you, we have activists, organizers, people who are here to say that they want a voice, they want to be represented by the government that they pay taxes to. Three D.C. three D.C.
▶ 1:38:20And it's just grand to sit here with other members who have higher murder rates than washington, D.C. but not, say, not invite the president to occupy their own state with the military. So I think it's important that we're here today to have this debate, because this is a debate about what's going on in washington, D.C.
▶ 1:38:45And why every american should be concerned and why, of course, every american should be concerned about what the president's doing, but in many cases, even more concerned about the fact that congress and that republicans in congress are want to do nothing about it. And in fact, they want to enable it and do anything. The president says. The gentleman couldn't even answer the question about if the bill was drafted with the white house. We know it was drafted with the white house. And so we we we say free D.C.
▶ 1:39:17And we'll continue to fight for the people of washington, D.C. who deserve for their home to be a state who deserve for their local officials that they voted for their city council, their members to make decisions about how to make sure that this is a safer place. And I got to say, when we talk about crime, when we talk about violence, gun violence has been going down in this country the last three years. We still have a lot of work to do. But you guys talk about it and nothing happens.
▶ 1:39:45We put forth solutions and pass bills like the safer communities act, and violence goes down in this country. That's the difference between us. I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Uh, anybody seek recognition, Mr. green? >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Um, you know, I want to talk about a story that I think is very relevant. Uh.
▶ 1:40:10Brendan ofori died after being shot on a green line metro train in 2023. Only on four. His mother tells what prosecutors told her about dropping charges against the 17 year old's accused killer. This was a 17 year old black teenager here in washington that was murdered, and prosecutors dropped the charges against the man.
▶ 1:40:39They have photos of him, eye witness accounts, and his murderer was never prosecuted, never went to jail. And I think that is the kind of judicial wrong that has not only happened here in washington, dc to many innocent people in their family, but it's happening all over the country.
▶ 1:41:02And this is a very relevant conversation, because when innocent people are being murdered, especially teenagers and their murderers are having charges dropped, or they have judges that let them off on lenient crimes or say they're a repeat offender, that has been.
▶ 1:41:28Arrested and arrested and arrested over and over and over again. And they keep getting released and they keep getting released. And there's another victim and another victim and another victim. This should go beyond political boundaries. And I can't understand how this becomes a fight about my democrat colleagues. Trump derangement syndrome and politicizing washington, D.C.
▶ 1:41:56This should be about victims of crime, and this should be the fact that we should have a justice system that holds people accountable for for the crimes they commit against innocent people. And right now, we're seeing on the news an innocent woman that came from ukraine. This woman felt safer coming from a war in ukraine. She thought she was coming to america to be safe.
▶ 1:42:23And she was murdered on a train in cold blood. Murdered. And we're seeing crimes like this day after day, night after night. And it goes on and on and on. And anybody wants to argue about the national guard, what? You people want the national guard coming in and handing out water bottles when there's some sort of natural disaster. Is that just what the national guard is supposed to be for?
▶ 1:42:52Well, I'm going to tell you what's up. The national guard is also here to protect and keep our streets and our country safe. They aren't meant to be sent over to foreign wars to go die in some foreign country. The national guard should be used for americans to be safe businesses, to be able to prosper, people to be able to walk with their families down the street. And I'm going to tell you something, people of washington, D.C.
▶ 1:43:20In this room, congress has jurisdiction over the district of columbia. That's the reality. Democrats. You may not like that, but that is the reality. The bills that are being passed here and being in a public setting, being discussed and debated and being voted on are for your safety, because what's happened and you know it because you live here. You are living in a city filled with crime, filled with crime.
▶ 1:43:48And we have witnessed it as members of congress. We've lived in a democrat congressman just a few years ago, got got. We've had interns murdered on washington, D.C. streets. And you know it because in your communities, you know people and you witness it. There's drive by shootings, there's drug deals, and the youths of this community are being done wrong. Absolutely being done wrong.
▶ 1:44:15And so I'm telling you right now, I can tell you I'm from georgia. Yes, that is where I am from. However, I come to work in washington dc and I live here when I am here for work and I happily go back home when I am not here for work.
▶ 1:44:32But I will tell you, there is a commitment by republicans on this committee to stand up against crime and do what is right for the american people, and I 100%, and so do my colleagues, 100% support the use of the national guard to clean up the crime and stop the criminals from murdering and raping and stealing and making cities unsafe. And that's the reality of where we are today.
▶ 1:44:59And so this debate can continue back and forth, but it is ridiculous. Fighting for criminals is a losing argument. Fighting against crime will win every single time on anybody that has common sense. Thank you, Mr. chairman. I yield. >> gentlelady yields. Share, miss simon. >> thank you, Mr. chair. And thank you, ranking member. I just. >> want to speak briefly.
▶ 1:45:27Um, and thank you for the citizens of D.C. for being here today. Um, your presence, uh, we honor it. It's extremely important to have you all here today to to bear witness to what we're talking about.
▶ 1:45:46You know, I'm sure a lot of folks in the audience and also folks here behind the dais, we have been victimized and experienced violence. I don't even know how many obituaries over the years that I've had to help mothers write.
▶ 1:46:07Um, how many funerals we have had to fundraise so that folks at the hands of gun violence in the permanency of poverty, we've just we've seen it. But I want to say one thing. And so I know that the hurt when we're talking about the joys of of potentially seeing and experiencing a beloved community where people don't die, where young men actually grow old. So I don't understand then why?
▶ 1:46:36On april 22nd of 2025, the doj unexpectedly canceled 365 grants totaling $800 million across programs across the country, including victim services and prosecutor's offices, juvenile justice, crime prevention, including including supporting critical messengers in communities that we know are taking guns out of
▶ 1:47:07Children's hands, can go into spaces where our brothers and sisters in law enforcement can't. Those grants were canceled in that same portfolio. We saw the breakdown, such as $535 million taken away from one particular grant, the edward bryan justice assistance grant program, 136 million of that from the juvenile justice block grants. I can go on. In may 2025, a group of senators came to push back.
▶ 1:47:36But again, this administration has shown us that while we virtue signal that we want safer streets, we continue to defund violence prevention programs. In fact, the white house closed down its office on gun violence prevention. I can go on and on. If we want safe communities, we will fully fund teachers in the city of washington, D.C.
▶ 1:48:02There are a limited amount of fully funded services for young people with mental health issues. So let's fully fund that. Let's fully fund job programs for every young person going door to door, filling out an application, trying to get a job. Let's fully fund that. Let's fully fund teachers who actually can live in washington, dc and not have to commute two hours to and fro. Let's fully fund that.
▶ 1:48:29Let's make sure that howard university has a hospital that can deeply treat folks who are suffering from chronic illnesses. Let's fully fund that. Let's ensure that when when these brothers and sisters who have sworn to serve this country, when they leave, that there is a sustained violence prevention effort that is overly funded, where you all don't have to come to the capital to beg every single
▶ 1:49:00Year to ensure that babies have lunch programs. Let's fund that, because no mother in this audience wants to stand at that gravesite. No district attorney or no public defender wants to sit in a courtroom and grieve another life. What I think we are all saying here, regardless of how we vote, is that the people of washington, D.C. deserve one self-determination and that the children deserve to grow old.
▶ 1:49:29So we don't need quick fixes. What we need is a congress that fully funds the district, fully funds education, fully funds reentry programs, fully funds accountability programs, fully funds rape kits, fully funds violence prevention as it relates to domestic violence. We know we've heard from you. See what you need and it is our obligation to do just that. Thank you all for being here today.
▶ 1:50:04>> chair recognizes miss boebert from colorado. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. You know, it's interesting all the funds that are needed for all these crime rehabilitation, I thought they were saying D.C. was such a safe and wonderful place. But really, I mean, washington, D.C. washington, D.C.
▶ 1:50:19Crime rates, uh, remain significantly higher than the national average, uh, particularly for violent and property crimes, despite recent declines, thanks to president trump and this administration for taking action based on the most recent data from 2020. For the latest full year figures available for 2025. Um, the breakdown, um, is key crime rates in D.C. versus the national average per 100,000 people in 2024.
▶ 1:50:48Violent crime in D.C. recorded 1006 violent crimes per 100,000 residents, compared to the U.S. average of 369. This makes D.C. violent crime rates 180% higher than the national average. There is a crime problem in washington, D.C. and I may have time to go back to more of this. I'd just like the property crime rates.
▶ 1:51:14Um, had 3693 property crimes per 100,000 versus the national average of 1758. That's 109.8% higher property crimes here in washington, D.C. I have a ring doorbell cam at my residence where I live when I am in washington, D.C. where I am here more than I am home. And unlike democrats, I have one registered residence, and that's in colorado. I don't go all over the country saying, this is my prime residence.
▶ 1:51:43Uh, I lease here, but on that ring door cam, I'm set up for a five mile radius of my home to get notifications of what's going on around me and all day, every day gunshots, car stolen porch pirates. Folks are getting their homes broken into on a regular basis, a daily basis. I get notifications on a ring door cam, just neighbors talking to one another. What is going on? 5 to 6, eight.
▶ 1:52:11Five, six. Eight. Gunshots just went off. Does anybody know anything? High speed car chase. Oh, no. Another package stolen. My car was broken into. My car was stolen. My house was broken into all day, every day in washington, D.C. you know, I have the same program in my home, for my home in a radius in colorado. And I get my cats missing, my dogs missing. Hey, I have a bike for sale. Does anybody want it?
▶ 1:52:40Do you want to purchase it? We don't hear gunshots going off every single day. There is a crime problem here. And as far as having an issue, taking issue with the national guard, having a temporary president presence to get your city, this city, our nation's beautiful capital, under control and safe. I didn't hear any problems from washington, dc residents or my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
▶ 1:53:09When 20,000 national guards came in and surrounded the capitol building and prohibited your first amendment rights to petition your government with your grievances, I didn't see an uprising there. We weren't happy about the fences and the hundreds of miles of of of barbed wire surrounding our nation's capital and armed national guard, tens of thousands of them keeping you out of the people's house.
▶ 1:53:38But now they're here to help and keep you safe. And that's somehow an issue. I'm glad that we are having this hearing today. I'm glad that we are having this markup. I'm glad that we are having this debate. Uh, you know, whistleblowers have even told this very committee that they have faced pressure from metropolitan police department leadership to manipulate crime statistics in washington, dc. We all live here.
▶ 1:54:04We're here a lot during the year. We see it. We don't need the data. We know it's manipulated because we see everything. You can't even go into a cvs store and get a bottle of shampoo because it's locked up. We want this to be a beautiful place for people to visit. The history here in this city is incredible.
▶ 1:54:33Our nation's capital should be celebrated. People should want to come here and certainly feel safe. And thanks to president trump and the legislation that we are marking up today, it can be. Mr. chairman, I yield. >> the lady yields back. Chair. Mr. silberman. >> uh, thank you. Um, Mr.
▶ 1:54:54Chair, I so this bill has one provision I want to talk about for a second, which is, um, I think it's subsection e. It says to increase the speed and lower the cost of processing concealed carry license requests. Uh, this has been shown to actually increase gun violence. Uh, and especially if you don't include live fire training, that's a 32% increase in gun deaths.
▶ 1:55:21Uh, and that could go on and on with statistics about why this is a terrible idea. If you actually care about the safety of people in dc, you're going to end up with people doing more concealed carry, more people with guns, more gun deaths. And this is precisely the reason why, uh, folks oppose this bill in dc. Residents oppose this bill because they didn't sign up for this. They don't want this, right? They don't want to be subjected to more gun violence than they already are right now.
▶ 1:55:48And so I think that this provision is something that if you put it on the ballot in dc, it'd be voted down very swiftly. >> well, the gentleman. >> yields on them and so I yes, I'll yield. Um. >> see. Dc has some of the most complicated and strict gun laws in the country, law abiding residents who wish to. >> I'm not going to yield my time, though. Do you have a question?
▶ 1:56:13>> well, I was just going to say that you said that basically criminals don't care about the law, and we don't change any of the procedures to get a concealed weapons permit. We just speed it up. That's all we do. We don't change any procedures. We just speed it up. You make law abiding citizens helpless victims. Why? God given right. The second amendment. You're talking about the I. >> I understand what the provision is trying to do that with all due respect. >> speeding up the ability for you to get concealed weapons permit. Why you want to concealed weapons permit in dc. You've got to wait months just to get an appointment.
▶ 1:56:44Criminals just go get a gun. They don't care. And so that's why you see 12 year olds with a gun doing carjackings. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. And it's our god given right to protect ourselves and our family. And so it speeds up the process. >> I thank you for your comments, because I think the people in D.C. don't agree with that. And I also think that the evidence doesn't agree with that either. We're not going to agree on that today. But I think the point I'm trying to make is that the people of D.C.
▶ 1:57:13Don't want this and don't agree with you. And by making the concealed carry permitting process more lax, you're not going to solve any sort of gun violence in the city. In fact, you're going to make it worse. That's what the evidence shows. It's not like no state has ever done this before. 29 states have done it right. But the evidence is pretty clear that gun violence has gone up in many of those states because of that law. And so I you know, that's why one of the reasons why I'm very much opposed to this bill is because of that specific provision, because one, the people at dc don't want it.
▶ 1:57:44They don't think it works. It doesn't work. Two, it's been shown not to work either. And so if we're actually going to address gun violence, let's not make it worse. But that's what this bill does. I yield back. >> the gentleman. >> yield. >> the gentleman yield. >> yield. Back to the gentleman from florida. >> thank you. No, I mean, it's just, you know, it's good to hear from our republican colleague here. He's concerned about the D.C. gun laws. He's concerned about gun violence in D.C. I'm not sure if the gentleman's aware that most guns used in crime in washington, D.C. come from outside washington, D.C.
▶ 1:58:11From states that don't have good gun laws. So my hope is from hearing your concern today, maybe we can work together. Maybe we can pass universal background checks. Maybe we can pass federal legislation to make sure that every state plays by the same rules, to make sure that we lower gun violence in this country and protect our people, I yield back. >> jenny member seek recognition. Any other member seek recognition. Seeing none. Oh, Mr. mfume.
▶ 1:58:43>> thank you very much, Mr. chairman. I just want to offer some perspective and perhaps something for, um, the sponsor of this bill to think about. Uh, we really are debating something that's very, very basic to all of us. And that is whether or not we believe in the imposition of policy without participation of those who are being imposed upon. I mean, this is what the boston tea party was about. This is why you hear in D.C. taxation without representation.
▶ 1:59:11This is why we don't even have a voting member in the house of delegates outside of a delegate, uh, because of this situation where we believe that we can impose policy without participation from the people who are being governed. Now, I want to just ask the sponsor of the bill a question. You said, sir, with all due respect, that there is so much here you didn't understand.
▶ 1:59:37And one of the things you didn't understand was why we I assume that meant those of us on this side of the aisle wanted to protect drug dealers. I'm making the assumption you really didn't mean that the way you said it is. I hope it was rhetorical, because it's clear that members on this side of the aisle are just as opposed to crime drug dealers, lunatics, rapists, and anybody else as you are. On your side of the aisle. >> will the gentleman yield? >> no, I will not yield just yet.
▶ 2:00:06So I'm assuming that was rhetorical, that you did not have an underlying assumption that we are somehow protecting and supporting those sorts of criminals. Now, this whole thing about imposition of policy, none of us, if we're honest, would have any kind of situation in our district like this. Unless we raised holy hell, we would lay down and tie up the government before we would let policy be imposed on us and the people we represent.
▶ 2:00:33Right or wrong, there is a practice here, and we ought to at least recognize and say there is a practice for those members on this side of the aisle. And I'm speaking now just for myself, but I assume that the others will agree. There is no safe haven for rapists and for murderers, and for child molesters and criminals. There ought never be. In fact, they ought to be put underneath the jail, sir, and there is no real safe haven that anybody is advocating.
▶ 2:01:00Now, let me just dial back for a minute to a time when dinosaurs ruled this earth way back in 1987. I met at the white house with president reagan, with congressman fauntroy, who represented the district at that time, to talk about this whole notion of home rule and the people of D.C. having an opportunity to govern themselves. If you'll check the record, the president at that time supported that. He believed in it.
▶ 2:01:29And he advocated that we find a way, whenever we want to do something, to have a conversation with the people that are being governed. I don't know that that conversation has occurred. I've not seen a meeting anywhere where we've gone out into the community as a committee to try to have that conversation. I have voted for every pro dc act here in the congress since 1987.
▶ 2:01:57So I've got a long telescope of what's been happening and what's not been happening. I sponsored and voted for the first bill to provide D.C. statehood in 1993. I have worked with delegate eleanor holmes norton on all since then, including the one that we barely lost two years ago. So when people here get upset, it's not because they just don't have anything to do.
▶ 2:02:20You wouldn't want somebody imposing policy on you unless you had a chance, no matter what the law was, to give your side of the story, to hear what you have to say and to understand your position. So let me just say that this whole imposition of policy, I know what the constitution says. I know about the the district being governed by by the congress and the president.
▶ 2:02:44I understand that, but let me remind you, donald trump was president for four years. Crime in dc was higher when he was president. Crime now has gone down significantly to 30 year lows. So I don't understand what happened between the first term in office and the second term to suggest that there is something out of control here. That is not really the case.
▶ 2:03:09And if he does believe that, I would say to the president and his people, why not have a conversation with the people who are being governed here, whether you agree with them or not, they have a say. They are americans, they pay taxes, they serve in the military. They do all the things everybody else can do except they, in this instance, have to live with your imposition of policy.
▶ 2:03:32So while the gentleman who introduced this may have great intentions, I would just say in the rhetoric around the bill, let's not make the assumption that people in D.C. like being led. Let's not make the assumption that democrats support crime. Let's not make the assumption that god almighty has bestowed upon you something that is lacking upon others because you have a difference of opinion.
▶ 2:03:58I will vote no on this bill, no on the others that come up that seek to do the same thing, and hell no. On final passage I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. For what purpose does Mr. bill Mr. bell seek recognition? >> Mr. chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. >> will the clerk please report the amendment? >> amendment?
▶ 2:04:27Amendment to the amendment in nature of a substitute to h.r. 50 103 is offered by Mr. bell of missouri. >> without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. The gentleman from missouri, Mr. bell, is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment. >> so as a as a former prosecutor, I understand the harmful impacts that bills like this one that we're considering can have on our communities. We've heard a lot of conversations.
▶ 2:04:54And so I want to kind of put this all together and let's talk about actual solutions, because we've heard a lot of cliches, a good a good guy with a gun in a bad guy with a gun that's just called a shootout, that's not safe at all. Um, we've heard the the national guard. Yeah. If you put an occupational force that that will tamp down on crime temporarily. But what happens the day after? It's like putting on deodorant and not taking a shower.
▶ 2:05:23That's only going to hold up for so long, right. And so if we're serious about addressing crime, then we gotta be serious about the solutions. And, um, and I'll push back on what many of my colleagues said. This is not a common sense issue. This is driven by data.
▶ 2:05:43When we look at gun violence, we see that as the gun gun laws have been loosened, the gun violence has gone up. We we have more people dying in this country than any other country in the world by gun violence. And the more and the less gun restrictions, the more gun violence. So what we're talking about is just simply common sense gun safety laws.
▶ 2:06:10We think that there should be violent history checks to make sure we know who has guns. Republicans oppose that. Um, we talk about, um, policing, community policing. We want to we want a police department that is representative of the people that it police, police.
▶ 2:06:29When I was prosecutor and when I was city councilman in ferguson, what we were looking at was reforming our police departments so that they didn't get promoted based on how many people they arrested. We wanted them to get promoted and accolades for how many people they knew in the community, because that's how you build trust in a community. Addressing root causes.
▶ 2:06:51If you if you just you can't incarcerate your way out of out of, um, you can't incarcerate your way out of mental health, you can't incarcerate your way out of out of substance abuse disorder. You got to treat it. If you send somebody with mental health to jail, they're just going to come out with a worse problem and they're likely to graduate to violent crimes. Same thing with substance abuse.
▶ 2:07:20And so this amendment is about delivering real, tangible investments in the district of columbia, investments that prioritize public safety, community well-being and long term progress. Let's invest in the resources that those folks that the folks need in D.C. let's invest in let's invest in food assistance, youth programs, housing, mental health services.
▶ 2:07:50Perfect segue from my, my, uh, my colleague, uh, representative simon. Let's fund those. That's what this event, this, this, this amendment is about instead of instead of. I heard him talk about being elitist. I think it's elitist when you're telling people what they should, how they should want to be governed. And just because you have a smooth southern accent doesn't change the fact that it's still elitist.
▶ 2:08:15And so here, by funding these types of things, now, we're giving the folks in dc the tools that they need to address those problems that we've been talking about all morning. We can equip D.C. with the resources it needs to address those root root crimes, not just the symptoms. And so this is a comprehensive approach to public safety that recognizes that prevention is just just as essential as enforcement.
▶ 2:08:44And so when we talk about making D.C. beautiful, we should be talking about investing in the people of D.C. not just cleaning graffiti off the walls. The true beauty of this city lies in its residents, its native communities and the culture they have already built. And so let's equip them with the resources and funding to support one another. I yield, I yield my time to the ranking member. If he. >> yeah, I'm actually going to speak next, Mr. bell. So Mr. >> uh uh, gentleman yields back.
▶ 2:09:15I'll recognize myself. Uh, while I'm very supportive of proper allocations of financial resources to washington, D.C. within its local budget, we are not the relations committee, we are the oversight committee. So we should be working these conversations through the regular budget and appropriations process.
▶ 2:09:34And I want to say, uh, this today, and I've said this publicly many times, I strongly support the, uh, if we have a continuing resolution, uh, and the president recommends anomalies and things like that, that, that we restore the funding for washington, D.C. that was, uh, supposedly inadvertently removed, uh, from the last budget we passed.
▶ 2:10:00So that's something that that I support. I think most of the members on my side of the aisle support, uh, we recognize that, uh, that money was money that washington, dc had had budgeted. And that money should, should be in washington, dc's budget. Mister chair, that's. >> something I think we have to reverse the amendments.
▶ 2:10:25And I think you're you're replying to the amendment that miss ansari is about to introduce, as opposed to the one that I just introduced, because initially her amendment was going to go, was going to go, was going to lead. I just want to make sure people are following us. >> yeah, I think. >> are we okay on that? >> the two parliamentarians are working this up. Well good.
▶ 2:10:57Alright. We're we're we're fine. So and I just want everyone to know I communicate with with the mayor. I've met, uh, at least two times with, uh, the chairman of the D.C. council. So when we work on these legislation, because this committee has legislative jurisdiction over washington, D.C. there's a lot of communication that takes place not just with myself and the mayor and the the chairman of the D.C.
▶ 2:11:24Council, but also between the oversight staff and the mayor's office and the and the council staff. So there is this isn't, as miss stansbury suggested, just something that popped out of, of, uh, mid-air. There have been a lot of conversations and communications that we don't always agree, but we are working together. And I'm as chairman of this committee, working with the local elected officials in dc to try to do things like the D.C.
▶ 2:11:52Stadium bill and, uh, to try to restore funding. Uh, that was, for whatever reason, removed from the the last spending bill. So today we are focused on specific criminal code reforms and federal executive authorities that are needed. So this amendment also dispenses with the underlying bill. I therefore oppose this amendment. Does any other member seek recognition? Uh, ranking member. >> thank you. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 2:12:22Chairman. I just want to just add my support to this amendment. I think that Mr. bell is exactly right. And just as a reminder, and this was said by some of the members earlier, but crime has been decreasing in the district. It is at historic lows.
▶ 2:12:37You look at the last couple of years before donald trump made the decisions to bring in the guard, this council and this mayor, and most importantly, the community has been working on issues of violence prevention, on investing in services which we know lead to crime reduction. That is a fact that's been well researched across this country.
▶ 2:13:01And just to to to reminder as a reminder, in august here in august of 2025, the president actually announced, of course, that he plans to work with congress to somehow raise this 2 billion to make the district safer. But there has been no plan and no specifics, just empty promises that the president continues to make. And so this amendment does fulfill some of that promise. It actually puts together a plan that actually would invest in the district. It's $2 billion that has been discussed.
▶ 2:13:29We're talking about reducing homelessness, expanding access to health care, providing food assistance to residents in need, supporting victims of crime which is so important, and investing in mental health services. We know these types of investments actually can use can be used to reduce crime, not just here, but across the country. And congress should be a partner to the district. We should not be using it as a political prop.
▶ 2:13:54We should be a constructive partner that helps dc to hire their own, make local investments and bring the community in. So let's please address public safety and the way that we best know how. And that's to put D.C. residents in the community first and invest in programs we know that will actually work. And so with that, I urge the adoption of Mr. bell's amendment. >> does any other member seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none.
▶ 2:14:20The question is on the amendment offered by Mr. bell from missouri. All those in favor signify by saying I. I all those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to a. >> recorded vote. >> sir, a recorded vote is ordered as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. For what purpose does, uh, Mr.
▶ 2:14:52Ansari seek recognition? >> Mr. chairman, I have an amendment on the desk. >> will the clerk please report the amendment? >> an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 5103, as offered by miss ansari of arizona? >> okay. >> without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. Uh, miss ansari is recognized for five minutes to explain her amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 2:15:20Earlier this year, the trump administration and congressional republicans unilaterally withheld $1 billion. That's billion with a b dollars from D.C. that is part of the city's local government budget. I'll repeat, these funds are all D.C. raised revenue. A senate pass fix has been sitting on speaker johnson's desk since march 18th. It is outrageous that this city is micromanaged to such a degree by the federal government, unlike any other american city.
▶ 2:15:48And on top of that, the administration can apparently decide to cut or withhold an enormous portion of the city's budget just because it feels like it. This is an issue of fairness, justice, and keeping the government's word to over 700,000 americans who are denied full and equal rights. How can the trump administration literally steal $1 billion from D.C. without any justification or resource?
▶ 2:16:17Imagine if this were phoenix, or los angeles or las vegas or dallas. I'm the former vice mayor of phoenix, arizona, the fifth largest city in the country. And I can tell you that a $1 billion withholding of budget from a city has massive implications. It should be no different for washington, D.C. while this is the city's capital, it is also home to hundreds of thousands of hard working people.
▶ 2:16:44What might actually have an impact on keeping people safe and healthy in our nation's capital? That would be the $1 billion of withheld funding for critical programs that keep this city running. Funds that are dc's, not the federal government's money, but donald trump obviously believes that this city is his personal playground.
▶ 2:17:07He has deployed the us military to its streets because he wants to feel powerful, because he is a dictator, and he wants to deflect from the fact that the biggest criminal in this city is himself sitting and occupying the white house at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. My colleagues have mentioned dc's crime rate is at a 30 year low. So what does trump have?
▶ 2:17:32Our nation's service members, many of whom who've been taken from their jobs, from their families as reservists? What are they doing here in washington, dc? He has them picking up trash, sitting around bored, directing traffic. I've seen this firsthand with my own eyes. It's been mentioned the way it sounds from my colleagues. They're more worried about their own personal safety here. I can tell you I feel very safe here walking around my navy yard neighborhood.
▶ 2:18:00But our president is more interested in photo ops and seeming like a tough, strong man than he is about spending government resources on the programs and policies that keep us safe, whether that's investing in counter narcotics programs or the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms. He has literally redirected counterterrorism and human trafficking resources away from their intended purpose and toward nonviolent immigration offenses.
▶ 2:18:28So that's why I hope this committee can come together in a bipartisan manner to fix this grave mistake that is costing washington, D.C. making this right will make this city and region safer, stronger, and better for everyone. To not do so would be a violation of our responsibilities and a stain on this committee and congress. Thank you. And I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. I'll recognize myself. And again, I support restoring that funding. I don't believe it was donald trump that took the funding.
▶ 2:18:57I think it was congress that that, uh, took the funding either inadvertently or whatever. So I support restoring the funding, but I cannot support this amendment because it it would strike the text of the underlying bill which enacts president trump's executive order on making the district of columbia safe and beautiful. So I oppose your amendment, but I support the objective.
▶ 2:19:21And again, we have I have asked that that be restored in the, uh, as one of the anomalies. If we go the cr route, which I would assume that's the route we're going to go and and that's something that in the meetings I've had with with both mayor bowser and middleton, they both requested that obviously. And I think that's a I think that should be restored. Now, I don't know.
▶ 2:19:49I'm speaking for myself, not everyone on the committee, but I support again what you're doing. But the amendment affects the underlying bill. So that's why I oppose the amendment. Does any other member seek recognition? Uh, I'll recognize the ranking member then. Mr. biggs, uh. >> thank you. I just want to thank miss ansari for the amendment. And I think, um, Mr. chairman, I think you've acknowledged that this was a mistake made by the congress, by the majority, by the speaker. And so this is an opportunity to fix a real horrific mistake.
▶ 2:20:20Uh, that is that is hurting the district to lose that amount of money, billion dollars in funding to provide for services, uh, is completely irresponsible. And congress has an opportunity right now. This committee has an opportunity right now to actually fix the issue it's created. And so I think this amendment does that. I want to thank, uh, congresswoman ansari for doing that. This is another example of why congress should not be the super city council for washington, dc.
▶ 2:20:49It cannot continue its efforts to try to take control over the district. Now, speaker johnson of the house, by the way, have refused to enact a simple fix. This is they have not moved forward in fixing this enormous mistake. Instead, D.C. today and across, uh, in most days, just hearing any of the debates, they want to use the district as a political prop. This bill throws $1 billion from the D.C. budget threatening city services.
▶ 2:21:19And I do commend the community and the the D.C. government for moving forward, even with this, this horrific cut and mistake. Now, we don't need national guardsmen picking up trash if we just let D.C. use their own money to fund normal city services, we should fix this issue, which the amendment does. And I want to thank Mr. ansari, and I urge a yes vote. >> uh, gentleman yields back chair. Mr. biggs from arizona. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 2:21:48And really, what I'm doing, I've got some unanimous consents. So this one's entitled murder murdered congressional interns. Mom says trump should take over washington, D.C. trump's D.C. crime crackdown overwhelmingly benefits black americans as homicides hit zero. This one from february 2012, 2024. Yes, prosecuting and arresting criminals would have immediate impact on dc's crime. This one from just the other day.
▶ 2:22:18Trump's dc crime crackdown nets murder suspects, sex criminals, illegal immigrants and more. In one night. This one trump's D.C. crime operation puts safety of families first as arrests surge past 1800. This one from a couple days ago. D.C. ward seven and eight see drop in crime during federal law enforcement surge. This one from eight days ago.
▶ 2:22:44Trump's labor day crime crackdown in D.C. net 70 arrests, including illegal aliens. This one. This was from last. November. Police arrest man suspected, suspected in a dozen sex assaults in D.C. and that's that's real stuff for now, Mr. chairman. >> objection. So ordered. Okay.
▶ 2:23:14Any other member seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none. Uh, the question is now on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. >> request a recorded vote, please. >> a recorded vote is ordered by the ranking member. As previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Our next item for consideration is h.r.
▶ 2:23:465214, the district of columbia cash bail reform act. The clerk will please designate the bill. >> h.r. 52 one for the district of columbia cash bail reform act, a bill to require mandatory pretrial and post-conviction detention for crimes of violence and dangerous crimes, and mandatory cash bail for certain offenses that pose a threat to public safety or order in the district of columbia, and for other purposes. >> without objection, the bill should be considered as read and open for amendment. Without objection, so ordered.
▶ 2:24:13The chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of substitute the clerk. Please designate the amendment. >> the amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 5214, as offered by Mr. comer of kentucky. >> without objection, the minute is considered as read, the substitute be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment. I recognize myself for five minutes for a statement on the bill and the amendment. I strongly support the district of columbia cash bail reform act.
▶ 2:24:35This bill requires pretrial detention for individuals charged with crimes of violence and dangerous crimes, and cash bail for individuals charged with public safety and order crimes. For far too long, dangerous criminals have been allowed to roam the streets of dc, posing a threat to the general public. Before this bill, progressive judges could release criminals to dc streets with only a promise that they will not reoffend and will return to court for their trial date.
▶ 2:25:03This bill eliminates this judicial discretion by requiring pretrial detention for those charged with crimes of violence and cash, bail or bail bonds for all defendants charged with certain public safety and law and order crimes. 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 common sense public safety bill. I now recognize the ranking member for his statement. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I strongly oppose the D.C.
▶ 2:25:32Cash bail reform act, and I want to just share why this bill once again interferes with D.C. law and makes major changes to dc's pretrial release and detention law. Now, the bill would require pretrial detention based solely on a charge. It will also prevent pretrial release for certain crimes unless a defendant posts a secure appearance bond. Now, no one on this committee wants dangerous people on the streets after they've been arrested.
▶ 2:26:00But pretrial release and detention law is actually substantially similar to the pretrial release and detention law in place now under both dc and federal law. Right now, pretrial release and detention decisions are based on an assessment by a judge of a defendant's risk of flight and danger to the community. And that's how it should be in our system. You are innocent until proven guilty. Detention decisions should be made based on risk, not on wealth or your access to pay.
▶ 2:26:27The pretrial service agency for dc provides a pretrial services for both the us district court for D.C. and the D.C. superior court. It's a federal agency, and it is extremely effective by national standards. Dc's pretrial flight and re-arrest rates are actually lower than the national rates. Now, this problematic bill has two main components.
▶ 2:26:48Component one is a mandatory pretrial detention for the period before trial based solely on a charge without necessary hearings, which is likely unconstitutional based on a 1987 supreme court ruling. And we're not aware, by the way, of any state, city, county or territory that mandates pretrial detention for the period before trial based solely on a charge. We should stand for due process and reject this dangerous policy. Now.
▶ 2:27:14Second, the other component of the bill that's incredibly problematic is the bill prohibits pretrial release for certain offenders unless a defendant posts a secured appearance bond. Pretrial release should be based on your danger to the public and your flight risk, not on your wealth. Pretrial detention can have significant consequences for a defendant and their family, including lost jobs, income, housing and child custody. This bill would essentially lock up more people that are of low income in this community.
▶ 2:27:43And again, pretrial. In pretrial, you are innocent until proven guilty. Now, finally, the data is clear that imposing financial conditions on pretrial release has no effect on crime rates. We should oppose dc bail reform act on its merits. We should also oppose it because it violates dc's self-government and bill. After bill being presented today, moves back the ability for D.C. to govern itself. So I urge members to vote no on this bill, and I yield back.
▶ 2:28:13>> gentleman yields back. Chair. Miss boebert from colorado. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. As a fierce advocate for law and order, I support congresswoman stefanik's district of columbia cash bail reform act. Our nation's capital is reeling from crime crisis, worsened by cashless bail policies that let violent criminals, murderers, rapists, carjackers walk free before trial, endangering residents, federal workers,
▶ 2:28:44Workers and visitors. Democrats have proven they are not soft on crime. They are pro crime. They are pro carjacking, pro rape, pro murder, pro criminals with these policies, this bill restores accountability, ensuring safety. In washington, D.C. the statistics are absolutely alarming. In 2023, D.C.
▶ 2:29:11Reported 274 homicides, a 20 year high with a rate of 39.4 per 100,000 residents, surpassing new york city's 5.5 and rivaling chicago's carjackings surged 547% from 2018 to 2023, with 140 incidents in june of 2023 alone, while 2024 saw a 35% drop in
▶ 2:29:44Violent crime. Homicides down to 32% to 187, robberies down 39%, and armed carjackings down 53%. 2025 data shows that 99 homicides by august, a 12% increase from 2024. But still, that is troubling. Total violent crimes in 2024 hit 22,320 with 21,437 assaults.
▶ 2:30:17Motor vehicle thefts up 9% in 2025 and reached 3136 by september. These numbers absolutely demand action. Cashless bail fuels this very chaos, creating a revolving door for repeat offenders.
▶ 2:30:36To see how cashless bail is working in real time, let's look at what happened to up to irena zurich. So I'm so sorry for saying her name wrong. I will get the ukrainian language down, but the wonderful woman who was violently murdered, uh, just this week, ukrainian refugee seeking safety in charlotte.
▶ 2:31:03Uh, she was brutally murdered on a train by a man with a violent past, repeated re, and was repeatedly released despite prior arrests for robbery, assault and erratic behavior. This man has been arrested and let go 14 times due to democrats pro crime policies, cashless bail and lenient pretrial policies.
▶ 2:31:29Let dangerous individuals cycle through our streets, endangering innocent lives like irena's. We need to take action to ensure repeat offenders aren't free to murder innocent victims. And so no family endures such senseless loss. Again, cashless bail promotes this kind of violence. There was no help for this man that was actually enforced.
▶ 2:31:58He was not institutionalized. He was not forced to seek help. And he was let go 14 times to repeat these kind of crimes. And this is the same thing that we see in washington, D.C. when we have cashless bail. Mr. chairman, I yield. >> gentlelady yields. Chair recognizes miss norton from washington, D.C.
▶ 2:32:28>> uh, thank you, mister chairman. I strongly oppose this bill, which amends D.C. law. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters opposing the bill from D.C. mayor muriel bowser, the entire D.C. council and D.C. attorney general brian schwab. >> without objection, so ordered. >> this bill is paternalistic and undemocratic. The over 700,000 D.C.
▶ 2:32:56Residents, the majority of whom are black and brown, are capable and worthy of governing themselves. The D.C. council has 13 members. If residents do not like how the members vote, residents can vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure. This is called democracy. Congress has 535 voting members. Uh, D.C.
▶ 2:33:30Residents do not like how the members vote on local matters. Residents cannot vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure. This is the antithesis of democracy. While the substance of this bill is irrelevant since there is never justification for congress to legislate on local D.C.
▶ 2:33:58Matters, I will briefly discuss it. The D.C. law is not unique. The fact is, it is very similar to the federal pretrial release and detention law, and the same well-regarded federal agency, uh, provides pretrial services
▶ 2:34:29In both the federal and local trial courts in D.C. under both federal and dc law. Federal and detention decisions are based on a defendant's wealth, not on any assessment of a by a judge or whether a defendant will appear and is a danger to
▶ 2:34:59Another person or the community. Nevertheless, judges have the authority to impose financial conditions on uh on release. Detention is a severe restriction on the liberty of an individual who is presumed innocent.
▶ 2:35:23This bill mandates pretrial detention without a hearing for certain crimes that it likely violates the D.C. uh, sorry, the due process clause of the constitution.
▶ 2:35:42I urge the majority to read the supreme court's 1987 decision that upheld the constitutionality of federal pretrial and detention law. The court stressed the law's procedural protections for defendants.
▶ 2:36:02Uh, the court said, quote, in our social liberty, in our social liberty is the norm. And detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.
▶ 2:36:28We hold that the provisions for pretrial detention in the home rule act of 1984 fall within that carefully limited exception, the act authorizes the detention prior to the trial of arrestees trial charged with serious felonies, who are found
▶ 2:36:58After an adversarial hearing to pose a threat to the safety of the individuals, uh, to the community, which no condition release can dispel. The numerous procedural safeguards detail above must attend this adversary hearing.
▶ 2:37:23Close quote this bill requires pretrial detention without any adversary hearing. Finally, the bill introduces commercial bile. Uh, sorry. Bail industry. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. >> I yield back. >> thank you. Is there anyone else who seeks recognition? Oh, Mr. lynch, you recognize Mr. lynch for five minutes.
▶ 2:37:54>> thank you, Mr. chairman. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the ranking member earlier. Um, I do want to point out that this statute, this this change in the law would, uh, would expand the, the number and, and type of of offenses against public safety or public order that that now apply, uh, in washington, dc. Um, I think.
▶ 2:38:24>> I didn't. >> say it. The ranking member earlier spoke to the impact of, uh, the residents of dc. And I just want to add, uh, another dimension to this. As we all know, washington, dc is is the place where the american people often come to exercise their right to petition their government.
▶ 2:38:46Throughout our history here in dc, going back to the veterans protests, the bonus army, uh, in 1932 during the depression, uh, going back to doctor king's, uh, rally in support of jobs and freedom, uh, where a half a million people followed him here for the purpose of petitioning their government.
▶ 2:39:11Uh, you can look at the black lives matter rallies that occurred more recently. Uh, the women's march, uh, back in 2020. And, uh, and so many others.
▶ 2:39:27This law, this law as written, would introduce pretrial, pretrial detention for anyone charged with an offense against public safety or public order.
▶ 2:39:42The current statute in washington, dc, which is amended by this currently regards excessive noise, excessive noise or behavior which may disrupt the tranquility of the community as as a an offense against public safety or public order.
▶ 2:40:05So this will impinge not only upon the the daily activities of the people of washington, dc, but it will also, I believe, violate the right, the constitutional right of the american people to come here and to petition their own government.
▶ 2:40:25They will now, after this bill is passed, uh, be exposed to detention, uh, pretrial detention, uh, without recourse, uh, detention. That will continue unless they make bail, which is new and different. So, look, I, I've been I've been a part time resident of washington, dc for almost 25 years.
▶ 2:40:53And from my own experience, having been here four days a week, five days a week for the past 25 years, things have gotten a lot better in dc. Things have gotten a lot better. I remember when we had we had significant challenges. That is not the case today. Uh, we have an excellent police force. We have, uh, wonderful, wonderful, uh, leadership at the city council level.
▶ 2:41:22And, uh, we've had a string of, of, of mayors here that I think have tried their level best to do what is right and to represent the the people of the district, the residents of the district, um, even though, uh, we have curtailed those rights, uh, by statute.
▶ 2:41:45This is a this is an assault on the self-determination of of the the residents of of washington, dc. And they deserve better than this. They deserve better than this. Um, it is it is one thing to to have the burden of, of of, uh, living here without active representation.
▶ 2:42:09Uh, it is quite another to have congress intervene on the basic functions of daily life that the people of dc, um, endure and go about each and every day. Um, this series of bills is, is is a is an overreach. And, um, we should we should defeat it.
▶ 2:42:35Uh, and and return the right to make those decisions back to the the mayor, the district, district, city council and the people of washington, dc. Thank you. I yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes Mr. mfume. >> Mr. chairman, uh, the distinguished gentleman from the district of columbia, uh, did not have enough time in making the points that she was trying to make.
▶ 2:43:04So I would respectfully yield the balance of my time to her. >> you're recognized. He's yielded. Time to you, miss bell. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Finally, this bill introduces the commercial bail industry and bounty hunters into local dc courts. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill and to pass the D.C.
▶ 2:43:32Statehood bill instead. Which will which will give dc residents voting representation in congress and full social self-government. D is, uh, I'm sorry, full local self-government. Dc is not unique.
▶ 2:43:53Uh, in fact, it is very similar to the federal pretrial release and detention law and the same well-regarded federal agency provides pretrial services in both the federal and local trial courts in dc under both federal and dc law.
▶ 2:44:21Release and detention decisions are based not on a defendant's wealth, but on an assessment by a judge of whether a defendant, uh, will appear and is a danger to another person or the community. Nevertheless, judges have the authority to impose financial conditions on release.
▶ 2:44:53Detention is a severe restriction on the liberty of an individual, which is presumed innocent. This bill mandates pretrial detention without a hearing for certain crimes. That likely violates the due process clause of the constitution.
▶ 2:45:17I urge the majority to read the supreme court's 1987 decision that upheld the constitutionality of the federal pretrial and detention law, uh, the count stressed the law protections by defendants.
▶ 2:45:39The court said, quote, if I'm sorry, in our society, liberty is the norm and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception we held.
▶ 2:46:01We 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, uh found after an
▶ 2:46:33Adversarial hearing to pose a threat to the safety of individuals or to the community, which. No, which no condition or release can dispel the numerous procedural procedural safeguards detail above must attend this adversarial hearing.
▶ 2:46:58Close quote this bill requires pretrial detention without an adversarial hearing. Finally, this bill introduces the commercial bail industry and bounty hunters into local courts. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill and to pass D.C. statehood bill instead, which will give D.C.
▶ 2:47:24Residents voting representation in the congress and full local government. >> are you are you yielding back? >> I yield back. >> the gentlelady yields, um, the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from pennsylvania, miss lee, for five minutes. >> uh, thank. >> you, Mr. chair.
▶ 2:47:54I urge my colleagues to oppose the cash bail reform act that would create standards that do not exist anywhere else in this country. Let's be clear, these arguments that republicans are now attaching themselves to when it comes to cash bail are nothing more than propaganda and fear mongering and hatred of poor people. Nearly this entire slate of bills up today shows that they hold the citizens of dc, who are disproportionately black and brown with less regard than their own constituents.
▶ 2:48:23Policies like these do nothing more than dehumanize and criminalize and subject dc residents to standards that are unconstitutional. At best, this bill would mandate pretrial detention for certain charges and attach mandatory cash bail amount for a slew of other charges. Pretrial detention means that this person has only been accused of committing a crime. They haven't been found guilty. They haven't gone in front of a jury. The state hasn't proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. It seems republicans have forgotten about innocent until proven guilty in the fifth amendment.
▶ 2:48:55Core tenets of our democracy. Our constitution ensures that anybody accused of a crime cannot be denied their life, their liberty or their property without due process of the law. But this bill would take away someone's liberty, their freedom, and hold them in a jail cell on nothing more than an accusation. This bill conditions release not on whether a person poses a threat to public safety, but on whether they can afford to pay to get out.
▶ 2:49:21We're not in a country where one is presumed guilty just because they're black or they're poor, but they're assumed innocent just because they're a white collar criminal. It's no shock that trump and republicans want you to believe that having more money makes you more deserving of release because they have money. But the fact remains that rich defendants accused of a crime are not inherently less dangerous than poor defendants.
▶ 2:49:49How does having access to cash have anything to do with the safety or the risk of a person right now? How it works in dc is that a judge will listen to factors about the person accused of a crime, such as their ties to the community, their employment, where they live, the charges themselves, and to determine the conditions of release without requiring money. Those judges can then allow detention of people who they think can't be safely released or trusted to return the court.
▶ 2:50:17These policies in dc have been on the books since 1992, and the data speaks for itself. Over the last four years, 88% of all people released pretrial remain completely arrest free. In 98% remain free from violent arrests. These charges, these changes to the system took place because they're connected to data that shows no relationship between cashless bail and crime, and many other states have followed suit.
▶ 2:50:41The brennan center used data from 33 states and examined their laws in detail, so categorized them based on how they work when they went into effect. The result carefully studied whether crime rates changed after reforms were implemented. The research found no clear relationship one way or another. The one industry that has suffered from dc's current cashless bail system is the for profit bail bondsman industry.
▶ 2:51:11They don't operate in the district anymore, but you can bet that if this bill passes, they're going to be rushing back to grow their already $2.4 billion industry further, of course, lining their pockets, uh, of rich folks at the expense of poor folks. When a person's freedom is at stake, they deserve to be heard as an individual rather than painted with a broad brush. That's called due process.
▶ 2:51:35It's also why it's so important for folks to have an attorney during these hearings, which is why I introduced the true justice act. Justice act, excuse me, to provide grants to public defender offices to expand their services, to include bail hearings, because not every jurisdiction, uh, provides that representation. To be clear, this bill would strip the due process rights of people who have not been proven guilty yet is shameful.
▶ 2:52:01Republicans to forward this bill, to put forward this bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from missouri, Mr. bell, for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chair. Um, I want to add a little bit of nuance here, because there's two conversations we should be having. There's low level nonviolent offenders, and then there's serious and violent offenders. Um, serious offenders.
▶ 2:52:25You're not going to find many judges that are releasing people that are charged with murder, homicide and rape. And by the way, I'm a prosecutor. I'm a was a prosecutor, um, before coming to congress. And so, uh, the gentlelady's assertion that all democrats are pro crime, pro rape, pro murder is insulting. Um, um, I locked up rapists and murderers and drug dealers. Um, hundreds of them.
▶ 2:52:54Um, and I'm not sure how many, um, the gentlelady has done, um, and so, but with low level nonviolent offenders, the problem is, is that when you require bail on on cases like these and, and in this, in this amendment, there is discretion because it says, uh, crimes that are clear threat to public safety and order.
▶ 2:53:19So that means low level offenders, if a judge used their discretion, could be kept in prison for low level offenses because they impacted, quote unquote, public order. And what you'll have is what we the reason why we see cash bail not working is because in as far as with, um, low level offenders, is that that the the rich murderer can purchase his freedom while the college student who forgot to pay a
▶ 2:53:50Ticket or they forgot to they they got picked up on a small amount of drugs and they can't make the thousand dollar bond. Well, they can't get out. And what we've seen is that if you want to make our our community safer, prisons aren't the way to do it. Our recidivism rates across the country after ten years are 80%. That means eight out of ten people are going back.
▶ 2:54:17So if you want to if you want to create criminals, put them in jail because that's what happens. They come out and they're more likely to re-offend. When we take low level nonviolent offenders and address those those root causes, the substance abuse, the mental health, the addiction. When we address that, the data shows they are significantly less likely to re-offend. We created a diversion advisory committee in saint louis county for low level, nonviolent offenders.
▶ 2:54:47Remember that 80% number I talked about? Of the 5000, close to 5000 people that we were able to get in our program, our recidivism rate was 3.9%. That means 96% of the people were not offending. We were connecting them with jobs. We were connecting them with health care. We were connecting them with housing, the things that they needed and that that correlate with with a lack of recidivism.
▶ 2:55:15So when we're going back, going backwards, because we already actually saw this problem and recognize that you can't, that cash bail for low level nonviolent offenders doesn't work. It actually makes us less safe. And so we got to make sure that we're understanding the nuance and the the policies that actually work, as opposed to the things that are just good to hear on a, on a, on a, on a campaign commercial or what have you.
▶ 2:55:45And so that's why I'm, I join my colleague, uh, representative norton, in opposing this bill because it doesn't work. I yield the remainder of my time to the ranking member if he so chooses to. >> take it. >> Mr. chairman. >> no. Go ahead. I think he's yielded to you. Oh, okay. Uh, the gentleman yields to, um, has expired because of that. And now I'll recognize myself for for my five minutes.
▶ 2:56:12So I support the bill, the underlying bill. And I just want to. There's so much to say, but I'm going to just limit it. And I'm going to introduce these, these articles in just a moment. But, uh, mayor bowser, um, we've had the I've had the pleasure to meet with her on numerous, numerous occasions talking about these types of issues.
▶ 2:56:37It's, uh, and she's a pleasant person, and I think she's sincere, and I think she she wants to do her best, uh, for for the district. Um, in, in august 13th, she said, quote, I can't say that given some of the rhetoric regarding president trump's rhetoric of the past, that we're totally surprised about his. And she said that relating to his, um, the national guard coming in.
▶ 2:57:04And then so minutes later, as this is from a cnn article, it says minutes later, she suggested the federal intervention may work to the city's benefit and told reporters she didn't have the legal authority to stop trump's plans. Quote, the fact that we have more law enforcement and presence in neighborhoods that may be positive, she said. And then she she didn't like the ice, uh, the presence of ice in the in the district.
▶ 2:57:28And then the following day, this is from the article again, she responded to a question about her relationship with ship, with trump saying, I'm the mayor and he's president. I mean, that's always been a relationship. And the D.C. mayor and president of the united states will always have probably more interaction than any city in the rest of our country. So we're going to keep doing our job. And that's really kind of what article one, section eight, clause 17 would imply.
▶ 2:57:52As as the gentleman from louisiana talked about earlier, another article, uh, dated august 27th, the mayor said this quote, we greatly appreciate the surge of officers that enhance what mpd has been able to do in this city, bowser said at a press conference, quote, the difference between this 20 day period of this federal surge and last year represents an 80%, 87% reduction in carjackings. Close quote.
▶ 2:58:20She went on to say that she had had a courtesy meeting with the president, and she suggested the surge of hundreds of federal law enforcement officers had filled the gap, a gap left by attrition and slow hiring, and the D.C. police department, something that had been a concern, a concern of hers long before trump's emergency declaration. And I know that's true, because that was one of the topics when I met with with mayor bowser previously.
▶ 2:58:47Quote, we need at least 500 new officers to hire 500 new officers over the course of the next several years, to have the number of officers that we need, and to decrease the amount of overtime that we use, bowser said. And then just from last week, late last week, mayor muriel bowser has issued an order requiring ongoing local coordination with donald trump's federal takeover of washington, D.C. her order. This is another quote.
▶ 2:59:16Her order also establishes a safe and beautiful emergency operation center, whose role will be to manage the district's response, coordinate centralized communications, and ensure coordination with federal law enforcement to the maximum maximum extent allowable by law within the district. Trump thanked her for her cooperation. I raised this because.
▶ 2:59:38Uh, I hear what my colleagues across the aisle say, and I'm hearing what our side says. But the reality is, you can't deny that there's been improvement in the district since the federal, uh, participation here. The mayor herself has said that. You just can't deny that. Um, and when you take that and you couple that with the constitutional.
▶ 3:00:09Um, authority delegated, not just delegated, but mandated to the congress, then it says, maybe we're not doing things wrong, but maybe we need to fix things just a little bit more. And for that reason, I support this bill and, um, submit these, without objection, into the record. And I so ordered and I'm going to yield back my time.
▶ 3:00:41Who else seeks recognition? Anyone? Gentleman from louisiana is recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I just want to comment regarding cash bail. Generally speaking, because my my my colleague across the aisle and, and we thank him for his service as a prosecutor and now here in congress and we're we respect his opinion and his passion for
▶ 3:01:12His core principles. And yet the observations regarding cash bail and how it actually works in the reality of the the conflict between law enforcement and the criminal element and our judicial system at its entry level, his assessment was was wrong and requires correcting the
▶ 3:01:43So-called low level crimes that that the gentleman would say absolutely should not have cash bail. A low level crime becomes a high level crime when somebody's home, and then the criminal didn't think somebody was going to be home like a burglary. You go into a home, they think the home's empty. That's a that's a burglary, but someone's home.
▶ 3:02:12Home sick or whatever. And they respond. That can quickly escalate into something far worse than a burglary. So it's it's the same. It's the same criminal actor out there that's committing these crimes.
▶ 3:02:28And when you remove cash bail, you remove that period of time where that that criminal who is a child of god, a fellow citizen, they have an opportunity in jail to step back from the elements that have perhaps driven them into criminal behavior in the first place.
▶ 3:02:53Drugs, alcohol, of, of violent, um, sort of an immersion into the some of the, the components that create the criminal lifestyle. And if, if they have, if they, if, if they get arrested now, they don't get arrested for every crime. You don't you don't get a speeding ticket every time you're speeding, do you?
▶ 3:03:22So when when there's an arrest of somebody, there's generally many unknown crimes similar that they have committed. So they get arrested. They have to go before a magistrate within 48, 72 hours, depending upon the state and the municipality. Then that magistrate, according to the law, has to set bond.
▶ 3:03:48And if there's if there's no cash bond, then that that criminal he doesn't have the means, you understand, to pay a cash bond. That's one of the that's part of the matrix to determine in these municipalities have had that have established no cash bonds and they give discretion to the judge to say, can you pay a cash bond? And god says, no, it's it's okay. There's no cash bond. He's immediately back out on the street.
▶ 3:04:16So we as a as a people have not given that man, that child of god, that opportunity to his forced upon himself by his actions to sit in jail for a week or two. It may be the first week or two in a long time has had no alcohol, no drugs. >> with the general. >> immersion and violence, and to give them an opportunity to to reflect upon his life like this happens in jail.
▶ 3:04:45But if he's in and out of the courtroom at his magistrate's hearing immediately after arrest, or quickly within a day or two after arrest, and he doesn't have to call someone to ask him to come post his bond, which is 10% of the generally 10 to 15% nationwide, to pay a bail bondsman. So if it's if it's thousand dollar bond, he has to come up with 100 or 2. But he don't have that.
▶ 3:05:12So he calls his friends, he calls his family and they don't want to. They don't want to pay because they've been burned before by the same guy. So he ends up in jail for a period of time, a week or two a month. And is that time frame, Mr. chairman, that this man, this child of god, has an opportunity to get his mind right?
▶ 3:05:36And I think we have a responsibility as a society to consider that totality of circumstance as it relates to cash bail. I yield, Mr. chairman. >> gentleman. Gentleman yields. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, Mr. gill, for five minutes, and. >> I'd like to yield my time to congresswoman boebert. >> okay. >> thank you very much for yielding. Um, I just wanted to highlight some points here.
▶ 3:06:06Uh, under current law, the district of columbia has a very pro crime pretrial release system. With few exceptions, the D.C. code requires judges to release all but the most heinous offenders on their own recognizance. Recognizance? Uh, or after pledging an unsecured appearance bond.
▶ 3:06:29Shockingly, under current law, someone could be charged with murder and released prior to their trial date. The district of columbia cash bail reform act addresses this problem by directly fixing D.C. laws on bail and pretrial detention.
▶ 3:06:49The bill establishes a tiered system of increasingly appropriate pretrial conditions based on the seriousness of the crime. Uh, there's been many arguments here just trying to diminish this to a traffic ticket or a small offense, but it is based on the seriousness of the crime.
▶ 3:07:08Uh, for the most egregious crimes, those defined in statute as dangerous crimes and crimes of violence, the judge is required to impose a pretrial detention of the offender. These crimes include terrorism, assault of a police officer, carjacking, child sexual abuse, murder, as well as other heinous crimes that we see all too often here in our nation's capital.
▶ 3:07:35This bill would also require mandatory cash bail for serious crimes that pose a threat to public safety and order, including fleeing a police officer, rioting and stalking, among others. For such serious crimes, those defined in the bill as public safety and order crimes requires cash bail as a as a condition of pretrial release for all other crimes.
▶ 3:08:01The bill retains the current law process for pretrial release conditions for anyone eligible for pretrial release include refraining from committing other crimes and the collection of defendants.
▶ 3:08:15Dna for all defendants eligible for pretrial release, the judge may apply additional escalating sanctions, including curfews, retaining to custody outside of hours of employment and other conditions the judge deems appropriate to ensure the public safety and compel appearance at hearings. Current D.C. code allows judges to release those convicted of crimes who are awaiting sentencing or appeal.
▶ 3:08:43If the judge feels the convict will not flee and does not propose danger to others. The bill also eliminates this judicial discretion and requires detention upon conviction. No longer will progressive judges be able to release criminals to the streets of the district, with only a promise that they will not re-offend and will show up in court.
▶ 3:09:11It will remove radical, progressive loopholes that allow violent offenders to roam the streets of the district, posing a threat to residents and visitors. Those charged with obstruction of justice, fleeing from law enforcement, rioting, destruction of property or stalking will no longer receive the least restrictive conditions for release. Sometimes no bail at all.
▶ 3:09:36This is a smart and long overdue reform that rectifies the ill conceived D.C. council cash bail and pretrial detention reforms, represented by the bail reform amendment act of 1992. D.C. law 9-125. Uh, Mr. chairman, I just wanted to. >> uh, will the gentlelady. >> um, provide some clarity? Sure. I'll yield for. >> a moment. >> it's actually. Mr. gill controls the.
▶ 3:10:06>> time, I apologize, I yield to Mr. gill. >> the gentleman. >> yield to. >> you, sir. >> no gentleman will not yield. Mr. gill, do you yield your time back to the chair? >> yes. >> thank you. Um. Who else seeks recognition? Um. Seeing none. The question is now on the amendment. In the nature of a substitute.
▶ 3:10:33All those in favor signify by voting I, I all those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment. The amendment is agreed to. Um, now we're going to go. The question is now on favorably reporting h.r. 5214, as amended. All those in favor signify by saying I, I opposed say no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the bill is ordered favorably reported, as amended. >> mister, can we.
▶ 3:11:04>> have a. >> recorded vote? Recorded vote is ordered as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. It's now time to consider h.r. 5172, the strong sentences for safer streets act. The clerk will please designate the bill. >> h.r. 5172, the strong sentences for safer streets act, a bill to increase the mandatory minimum sentence. >> the bill should be considered as read and open for amendment at any point without objection. So ordered. Chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk will designate the amendment.
▶ 3:11:33>> the amendment, in the nature of a substitute offered to h.r. 5172, as offered by Mr. biggs on behalf of mister comer of kentucky. >> without objection, amendment is considered as read. The substitute will be considered as original text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize myself for an opening statement on the bill and the amendment for five minutes, so I support h.r. 5172, the district of columbia criminal mandatory minimums reform act. In 2023, the D.C. council passed the revised criminal code act of 2022.
▶ 3:12:03It implemented a progressive, soft on crime sentencing reforms and lowered minimum minimum sentences for many crimes. Congress successfully passed h.j. Res 26 to disapprove of this radical legislation. H.j. Res 26 was a bipartisan effort signed into law by then president biden as public law 118 one. Even with this success, the D.C. code still contains mandatory minimums that are much lower than the rest of the nation.
▶ 3:12:33For instance, currently, second degree murder and rape have no mandatory minimum sentence for first degree burglary has only a five year mandatory minimum first degree child sexual abuse has no mandatory minimum. This legislation updates mandatory minimums for a few violent crimes.
▶ 3:12:57This bill ensures that several offenses, including first and second degree murder, rape, first degree sexual assault of a child, armed and unarmed carjacking, and first degree burglary are taken seriously in dc courts by reconfiguring the mandatory sentences. These reforms are necessary to address violent crime in the district. And what do greater sentences do? They provide both specific and general deterrence. What is the purpose of a judicial system?
▶ 3:13:26A criminal justice system? It is to protect people from those who commit violent crime in particular, but those who commit crimes. And when you sentence someone, you have both a specific deterrence. That is to say, that individual is removed from the community. For if upon conviction for the crime that they have committed.
▶ 3:13:51Number two, you also get general deterrence, because when the law is enforced, oddly enough, other people say, I don't want that to happen to me. Thus, I don't want to engage in this criminal conduct. And so you see specific and general deterrence. Third thing that you see is an opportunity for the community itself to find restitution, retribution, and honor the rule of law, which is necessary in a constitutional republic that honors freedom.
▶ 3:14:20And then also you do allow victims to recover, um, through, uh, these types of sentences that are necessary. So I also want to, um, give you seven attacks, uh, that that happened here in this particular location, meaning the district of columbia.
▶ 3:14:42Um, we had the, uh, on august 3rd of this year, doe staff were beaten by teens in an attempted carjacking in june, june 30th, end of june, we had a congressional intern shot dead. On may 21st, we had two israeli embassy staffers, staffers shot and killed. On may 17th, we had a mob of about 100 teenagers wreak havoc in the navy yard neighborhood, just a block from nats park.
▶ 3:15:12On may 9th, you had a senior congressional staffer and robbed in the navy yard in late 2023, uh, house democrat henry cuellar was by armed masked men outside an apartment building in the navy yard.
▶ 3:15:31He condemned the crime, calling the criminals punks with guns, and touched on soft on crime policies, noting that if criminals are put in jail, you've got to lock them up and keep them there. That's what mandatory minimums do. And another house democrat was assaulted in an apartment elevator in february of 2023. Again, this this article 19 year old former dodge worker assaulted in dc carjacking attempt.
▶ 3:15:58Senator rand paul staffer uh, attacked in washington, dc. An fbi special agent was in washington, dc. A safeway employee in dc was slashed with an ax by shoplifter. By a shoplifter. Normally you think of shoplifting as a is a misdemeanor. In arizona, it's a class one misdemeanor. But here greater violence. How about this? Two separate armed assaults in northwest dc stopped by a good samaritan minutes apart.
▶ 3:16:26August of this year. Armed thug terrorizes peace street in dc. Stickup. And then this one's old, but it's 23. It's an oldie, but a sad one. Congressional staffer attacked her nats park following charity baseball game. The point is, those of us who have prosecuted and defended, we understand something. When someone is facing mandatory minimums, they tend to have that general deterrence effect.
▶ 3:16:56They want to stay out of prison, they want to stop. And that's what this would do. And these these sentences proposed in this bill are not out of whack or out of line with the vast majority of jurisdictions in this country. But to have no mandatory minimum for rape or no mandatory minimum for first degree child abuse, that is out of whack with america.
▶ 3:17:20And so I encourage, uh, people to support my bill. And now I yield back and recognize the ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Just again, I want to oppose this bill. This is a new aggressive mandatory sentencing act for the district. And I just want to remind us that we should be following the will of D.C. residents and that the existing research on mandatory minimum sentencing is important for us, as this bill is debated.
▶ 3:17:51Now, decades of evidence shows that mandatory minimum sentencing laws have actually failed to reduce crime and in many ways have worsened the problems within our judicial system and justice system. Now, one of the clearest outcomes of mandatory minimum sentencing has been the exponential increase of the us prison population. The results of this type of legislation from the 90s was mass incarceration, not meaningful or lasting reductions in crime.
▶ 3:18:14Now, research has shown, has shown that there's no evidence that mandatory minimums actually significantly reduce crime rates. Now, research instead points to the conclusion that it is certainly that that it is the certainty of punishment, not the severity, that actually deters crime. Communities are asking for more detectives, more effective prosecutions, more police patrols, not longer sentences alone.
▶ 3:18:38Now, over the last two decades, both the federal government and the states have begun to move away from mandatory minimum sentencing. This has been a bipartisan push. In fact, republicans who have championed this issue have included senators ted cruz, mike lee, john cornyn and many others. Now, beyond its limited crime control impact, increasing mandatory minimum sentencing makes our legal system less effective. Judges lose discretion to consider mitigating circumstances or to propose alternative punishments.
▶ 3:19:09Mandatory minimum sentencing also disproportionately affects minority groups. So this is also a racial justice issue. At the federal level, mandatory minimum sentencing is rarely applied to most violent crimes, so we must learn from our past mistakes. Mandatory minimum sentencing has fueled mass incarceration, failed to deter crime, and denied and deepened racial disparities. So we have the evidence in front of us. We can do better. And I urge my colleagues to allow D.C.
▶ 3:19:37To control its own laws and to vote no. And I yield back. >> we seek recognition. Chair recognizes the delegate norton from district of columbia. >> this undemocratic and paternalistic bill, which amends D.C.
▶ 3:19:59Law to apply mandatory minimums for certain crimes and to increase existing mandatory minimums for certain crimes. The over 700,000 D.C. residents, the majority of whom are black and brown, are capable and worthy of governing themselves. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters opposing this bill from D.C. mayor muriel bowser, the entire D.C.
▶ 3:20:28Council, and the D.C. attorney general brian schwab. >> without objection. >> I strongly oppose mandatory minimums for several reasons, including that they do not deter crime and for their role in this country's mass incarceration crisis. How?
▶ 3:20:53However, whether to establish, eliminate, increase, or decrease mandatory minimums should be a decision for D.C. alone. I respect D.C. home rule. I want to discuss democracy or lack thereof, on on D.C. the D.C. council has 13 members.
▶ 3:21:24Its residents do not. If residents do not like how the members vote, residents can vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure that is called democracy. Congress has 535 voting members. No one are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how the members vote on local D.C.
▶ 3:21:55Matters, residents cannot vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure that is the antithesis of democracy. To my republican colleagues, I want to share with you the first two paragraphs of the signing statement your fellow republican president, richard nixon, issued on the D.C.
▶ 3:22:22Home rule act, quote, as a long time supporter of self-government for the district of columbia, I am pleased to sign a law into law, a measure which is of historic significance for the citizens of the nation's capital.
▶ 3:22:49I first voted for home rule as a member of the house of representatives in 1948, and I have endorsed the enactment of home rule legislation during both my terms as president.
▶ 3:23:02One of the major goals of this administration is to place responsibility for local functions under local control, and to provide local governments with the authority and resources they need to serve their communities effectively.
▶ 3:23:24The measure I signed today represents a significant step in achieving this goal in the city of washington. I will give, uh, the people of the district of columbia the right to elect their own city officials to govern themselves in local affairs.
▶ 3:23:49As the nation approaches the 200th anniversary of its founding, it is particularly appropriate to assure these persons who live in our capital city, rights and privileges which have long been enjoyed by most of their countrymen.
▶ 3:24:15Close quote I urge note on this bill, and I yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. Who else wishes to be heard on this bill? Seeing none. The question before you now is the amendment of the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by voting I. I opposed. No. >> no. >> opinion of the chair. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
▶ 3:24:42The question is now unfavorably reporting h.r. 5172, as amended. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed no. >> no. >> in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the bill is ordered favorably reported, as amended. >> recorded vote please. >> a recorded vote is ordered as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Next item for consideration is h.r. 5163, the clean and managed public spaces act.
▶ 3:25:10The clerk will please designate the bill. >> h.r. 5163, the clean and managed public spaces act, a bill to prohibit camping on public property in the district of columbia. >> without objection, the bill shall be considered as read and open for amendment at any point without objection so ordered. The chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Please designate the amendment. >> an amendment in the nature of a substitute, to h.r. 5163, as offered by Mr. biggs on behalf of Mr. comer of kentucky. >> that. Objection. Objection.
▶ 3:25:39The amendment is considered as read. The substitute will be considered as original text for the purposes of further amendment. I recognize myself actually I don't I recognize the chairman, Mr. comber, for five minutes. And there you go. >> thank you, Mr. briggs.
▶ 3:26:08I support h.r. 5001 63, which would prohibit outdoor camping on public property in the district of columbia. On march 28th, president trump signed an executive order titled making the district of columbia safe and beautiful, which sought to restore order to our capital city. A key aspect of this plan is directed the national park service to remove homeless encampments on federal land.
▶ 3:26:34Under this legislation, a person shall be fined not more than $500 in prison for not more than 30 days, or both, for camping on public property. This is a very important step to making our nation's capital safe for residents and visitors. I want to thank the sponsor of this legislation, representative timmons from south carolina, for his leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support the timmons bill. I now recognize the ranking member for his statement. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I strongly oppose h.r. 5001 63.
▶ 3:27:03This bill finds and criminalizes the homeless and people that are unhoused in dc. Now, we should be clear, homelessness is a challenge across the country, and we should be doing everything to address it. But a bill that makes it a crime to be unhoused or poor is wrong and immoral. A bill that does nothing to increase housing supply, nothing to increase services, nothing to make housing more affordable is wrong. It should not be considered by this body. Now, a person who lives in a tent can't pay a $500 fine.
▶ 3:27:29So instead we're going to put them in jail. There's nothing for them when they get out, so they end up going back on the street. Now they have charges on top of that, it'll be harder to get new housing, harder to get a job, harder to assist them get back into society.
▶ 3:27:48We're just trapping people in another cycle now, instead of criminalizing the poor and those that are unhoused, local officials have been working to reduce homeless population by 20%, by the way, which they've done between 2015 and 2025 through evidence based activities, the district has expanded supportive housing, mental health services, job training and substance abuse treatments.
▶ 3:28:14Now, it's important to note that many veterans live on our streets as well, and district officials and local community groups are working tirelessly to house veterans and provide them with the care that they need. So now, on top of this, we're also going to be criminalizing our veterans that we're trying to assist on the streets of the district.
▶ 3:28:34Now, I've also heard from my colleague, ranking member takano of the veteran affairs committee, who has said, and I just want to quote this, criminalizing homelessness, particularly for veteran homelessness, threatens to undo our critical efforts and progress in ending veteran homelessness. And from my perspective, as ranking member of house committee on veterans affairs, these penalties and displacements displacements imposed by this bill would actively hurt every population that we're supposed to be helping. End quote.
▶ 3:29:03And that's his statement, which I'll submit for this in the record. Now, Mr. chairman, I ask unanimous consent to insert the rest of his letter. Uh, for this record. >> without objection. So ordered. >> thank you. Now, america's homeless population doesn't just include veterans, of course, but also families with children and women who are fleeing domestic violence. But it appears that donald trump and the majority don't care. Now, president trump shut down the U.S.
▶ 3:29:28Interagency council on homelessness, which sought to explore and address the root causes of homelessness, and my republican colleagues voted to block D.C. from spending 1 billion of its own tax revenues, money that can be used for real solutions to homelessness, including more affordable housing and wraparound services. We should look at ways to address the affordable housing crisis. This bill does nothing to provide more housing, nothing to provide more support.
▶ 3:29:53Yet it's once again criminalizing people that need our support on the streets of D.C. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this backward legislation, and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes the sponsor of the bill, Mr. timmons from south carolina. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I'm going to start with my prepared remarks, and then I'm going to address the ridiculous things that were just said by the ranking member. So first, the district of columbia is more than just a city. It's the front porch of our nation.
▶ 3:30:21Millions of visitors from across the country and around the world come here every year to see their government, their monuments and their history. They expect, and they deserve to see a capital city that is clean, safe and welcoming. When our public spaces are overtaken by encampments, that sense of order and pride is lost not just for visitors, but for the residents of the district who use these streets every single day. My bill, the clean and managed public spaces act or the caps act, bans camping on public property in D.C.
▶ 3:30:49Ensuring that the capital of the greatest country in the world reflects the dignity, safety and pride of its people. And when you get down to it, that is what this bill is about. People allowing individuals to sleep in tents on the streets is not compassion, it is neglect. A tent is not housing, a sidewalk is not a home, and leaving men, women and families exposed to the elements, to crime, to addiction and to despair is the opposite of what a caring society should do. Public safety is also at stake.
▶ 3:31:16Encampments have too often become sites of violence, drug trafficking, fires, rape, sexual assaults, residents walking their children to school, seniors going to the grocery store, and visitors walking to the monuments should not have to navigate tents and hazardous conditions. Our public spaces must remain open, orderly and safe for all. By passing the caps act, we send a clear message america's capital city will be clean, managed and worthy of the nation it represents.
▶ 3:31:41At the same time, we reaffirm our commitment to helping the most vulnerable, not by abandoning them to sleep in unsafe tents, but to ensure they have a real chance at recovery, stability and dignity. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this legislation. Let's restore the beauty, safety and pride of our nation's capital, while ensuring that every individual in need is offered more than a tent. They are offered hope now to address the comments from the ranking member.
▶ 3:32:06All that this does is give law enforcement the ability to get these people off the streets and get them help. Functionally, a conditional discharge will be given. They would be sent somewhere to get the mental health counseling, the drug addiction counseling, whatever they need to get back on their feet. This is not going to result in criminal penalties. This is going to give law enforcement the tool to get these people the help that they need. By the way, file an amendment if you have a better idea. But I'm not going to have people come here and tell them that they can't walk to dinner. They can't walk around the mall.
▶ 3:32:38That's just completely unacceptable. For the last six and a half years I've been doing that. I told my commanding officer that he had to walk. He could not walk from his hotel to his restaurant. You know what happened? He did. There was an active shooter. There was an active shooter right there. And he called me. He said, yeah, I probably shouldn't have walked outside. Had another military colleague come. He had to run away from a homeless person that had a knife. I had my chief of staff had to move because somebody kept defecating on his front lawn.
▶ 3:33:06This is not how this world is going to be in washington, D.C. a nation's capital in decline is a nation in decline. If you want to say, let's provide additional services to allow these people to get back on their feet, I'm all in. But what this does is it takes them off the street and it gives the city of D.C. the ability to force them into safe conditions where they can shower, where they can have a toilet, where they can get food and clothes and mental health counseling and drug addiction counseling. That is what we need to do.
▶ 3:33:35That is the humane thing to do, and it is immoral. It is immoral to allow these people to live under bridges, cold, hot, rain, whatever it is, it is immoral to allow them to defecate in the streets. It is immoral to allow them to harass our visitors and we're not going to stand for it. President trump has put an end to it. He signed an executive order bringing in the national guard.
▶ 3:34:00And I tell you what, it doesn't matter who they voted for, the district's residents are happy. They are. It is palpable. It is palpable the way that this city has changed. Everyone is safe. And by the way, to date, they haven't actually had to draw a weapon. Because you know what happens when criminals know that there are consequences for their actions? They don't commit crimes.
▶ 3:34:23When you have a half dozen national guard soldiers walking around making sure that nothing bad is going to happen to the residents of the district of columbia, ensuring the peace and safety, crime has gone down 78%. So we're going to continue to do the job that the city of D.C. should be doing, and we're going to get this city back in shape because there is a new day in the world. There's new leadership in the world.
▶ 3:34:49Not only is the capital of our nation going to be safe and prosperous, but the world will benefit from the new leadership in the white house. With that, Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes Mr. norton from washington, D.C. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I strongly oppose this undemocratic and paternalistic bill which establishes a new D.C. crime. The over 700,000 D.C.
▶ 3:35:14Residents, the majority of whom are black and brown, are capable and worthy of governing themselves. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters opposing this bill from D.C. mayor muriel bowser and the entire D.C. council and D.C. attorney general brian schwab. >> without objection, so ordered.
▶ 3:35:37>> the united states knows how to prevent and end homelessness, including by investing in housing, good paying jobs and health care. Criminal penalties are not among the solutions I strongly oppose criminalizing homelessness, however, whether to criminalize it should be a decision for D.C. alone.
▶ 3:36:05I respect home rule. This bill makes it unlawful in D.C. to camp outdoors in or on public property. The penalty is a fine of up to $500, up to 30 days in jail, or both. I note that D.C.
▶ 3:36:35Municipal regulations already prohibit camping on public property, and the penalty is a fine of up to $300. Separately, D.C. law already prohibits crowding, obstructing, or in accommodating public property.
▶ 3:37:01The penalty is a fine of up to $500, up to 90 days in jail, or both. I want to discuss barca's democracy, or lack thereof, in the district of columbia. The D.C. council has 13 members as residents. If its residents do not like how the members vote, residents can vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure that is called democracy.
▶ 3:37:34Congress has 535 voting members. None are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how members vote on local D.C. matters, residents cannot vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure that is the antithesis of democracy. D.C.
▶ 3:37:58Residents have all the obligations of american citizenship, including paying federal taxes, serving on juries, and registering with selective service. Yet they are denied full federal um, sorry, denied full local self-government and voting representation in congress. The D.C. statehood bill, h.r. 51, the washington, D.C. admission act, is this illusion. The D.C.
▶ 3:38:32Statehood bill would reduce the size of the federal district from 68mi to 2mi, which would consist of the white house, the capitol, the supreme court, and the national mall, and remain under the control of congress. The residential and commercial areas of D.C. would be a new state. Congress has both the moral obligation and the constitutional authority to pass the D.C. statehood bill.
▶ 3:39:00I urge a note on the clean and manage public safety's act. I yield back. >> chair. Recognize Mr. biggs from arizona. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I'll just reiterate, because I think this gets lost a lot. That article one, section eight, clause 17 is very crystal clear.
▶ 3:39:28Congress has exclusive and that's the word used, exclusive authority over the legislation of the district. That's that's it. Congress, though in 73, decided that it would grant some authority and delegate some authority to the district, and it did. But congress has every constitutional authority and right to weigh in on these decisions as it is done.
▶ 3:39:56And I'll just point out something on the last bill that we talked about just a couple of years ago, that was a bipartisan bill that went up and was signed by a democrat, president joe biden, regulating the criminal sentencing guidelines of the district. And somehow the district is saying, well, gee, this is unusual and unreal and inappropriate. This time, I'll yield my time now to Mr.
▶ 3:40:27Timmons. >> I want to thank my friend from arizona. I guess I'm going to start by saying that if the district of columbia was enforcing its own criminal code, we wouldn't have this problem. But it's not. It refuses to. And that's because the city council doesn't back the men and women of law enforcement and 5600 people prior to the president signing an executive order, were living in the streets. It was absolute chaos.
▶ 3:40:54The encampments, the drug use, the crime, all of these things occurred because the district of columbia violated its obligation to enforce the rule of law. That's why we're here, and that's why there's a federal statute that is being proposed that would do the same thing that the D.C. city criminal ordinance would do. So that's number one. Number two, and I wish that the ranking member were still here. Um, hundreds of municipalities around the country have implemented bans on outdoor camping in public spaces.
▶ 3:41:22Many are in california, where governor newsom threatened to withhold funding from cities and counties that did not clear encampments from public property. In fact, long beach, california, where the ranking member was the mayor, has had a long standing ban on outdoor camping in public spaces, and the long beach police department has enforced this ban by making hundreds of arrests and issuing hundreds of citations this year, making long beach safer for its residents and visitors.
▶ 3:41:49If you want to check it's long beach municipal code section 940 2-1 ten, my bill aims to do just what the ranking members. Criminal ordinance in long beach does. If the city of washington, D.C.
▶ 3:42:08Refuses to enforce its own criminal code, we are going to give federal law enforcement the tools to do what they refuse to, and to do exactly what the mayor's former city of long beach is doing, probably as much as any city in the country. So I hope everyone recognizes the need for public safety in our nation's capital. Just as long beach leadership has in their own city, and support this common sense.
▶ 3:42:34Bill, I'm going to again say, all that this bill does is gives a tool for federal law enforcement to do what the washington, D.C. police refused to do. And these people are not necessarily going to result in criminal convictions. It's going to give law enforcement and prosecutors the ability to force them in to getting the help that they need. If you want to file an amendment to provide additional resources, so be it.
▶ 3:43:01But we have to give federal law enforcement tools to do the job that the D.C. city officials refuse to. I urge support of this bill, our nation's capital so badly needs it. I yield back Mr. yield back to the gentleman from arizona. Mr. biggs. >> I thank the gentleman for his comments and associate myself with them. And and, uh, yield back to you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 3:43:30>> would the gentleman yield for a question from arizona? >> does arizona have a question? I mean, I are you asking me. Yeah. Go ahead and ask. >> I just want to ask you a question about as it relates to D.C. I mean, do you think it's fair that there's 700, over 700,000 people who live here without proper representation, who pay taxes? >> let me ask you this. Did you take an oath to adhere to the constitution of the united states? >> the constitution united states doesn't prohibit us from making D.C. a state.
▶ 3:43:59It says that there should be a federal district run by congress. And the bill that Mr. norton is pushing would amend and change the federal district. >> so. >> so I reclaim my time because only nine seconds. I oppose dc statehood unequivocally. But let me just say this. If you adhere to the constitution, then you understand that we clearly have the exclusive authority over dc legislation. Yield back. >> the chair recognizes Mr. frost. >> just that. >> to continue off of that point, which I think is is true.
▶ 3:44:31You keep bringing up the constitution, but the constitution does not prohibit congress from making ensuring that the 700,000 people who live in washington, dc, can live in a state and have a state. It says there needs to be a federal district, that congress has authority over. And what we're trying to do is make it so we change the boundaries of that federal district to be the places that we work. The united states congress, the white house, the national mall.
▶ 3:44:58So these 700,000 people can have proper representation because they're paying taxes. The constitution does not say you can't make washington, dc and make sure these 700,000 people have a state. And I think it's really important to know that. The other thing is the founders in 1790, there were fewer than 5000 people living in the district of columbia. Now there's over 700,000. >> well, the gentleman yield for question. >> sure. >> what does that have to do with the 5600 people that were living on the streets six weeks ago? >> good question.
▶ 3:45:27I'll reclaim my time. I'll get right to that. Because you brought up that there's so many people, uh, cities across the entire country that are criminalizing homelessness. And it's true. It's going on after the disastrous supreme court decision. Grants pass versus johnson. We see cities across the country criminalizing homelessness. Hell, my own city of orlando has done it, too. And I think it's despicable. I think it's wrong if a blue city does it. I think it's wrong if a red city does it, because the problem here is you're not looking to solve homelessness, you're looking to hide it.
▶ 3:45:57You're not looking to provide an alternative to living on the street. You're looking to brush it away to another place. >> well, the gentleman. >> yield and not yet. And I think it's important. The other thing is, the sponsor of this bill brought up. Well, we're just giving them a tool. The tool is criminalization. That's the tool that you're handing federal law enforcement that they can be fined and jailed. Further putting people who are having a tough time in life, living on the streets into this cycle. You want to you were talking about supporting services.
▶ 3:46:25Well, you have a chance. Donald trump's fy 26 budget. He wants to cut hud by 44%. I'll yield to you if you can tell me if you're going to stand up to that. You were saying that you want to have services for people. This would make massive cuts to affordable housing, homeless services, rental assistance, all the things that help us keep people off the streets. Will you join us in opposing that? >> that's a great talking point. We both know that the funding is not going to be different, so the. >> funding will be different. >> a budget. Number for.
▶ 3:46:56>> the programs. I'll reclaim the number for the programs that help homeless services will go down. Do you support that? >> the president's budget is always aspirational document. And we both know. And again what. >> are you saying. It doesn't matter what the president is saying. He wants to cut hud by. >> $4.7 trillion. >> in my time. >> will reclaim my time 44%. He wants to cut hud. He wants to cut homeless services for your district and my district. Do you agree with that? I'll yield if you can answer yes or no, yes or no? Really?
▶ 3:47:25>> you and I both know that the funding will be no different than last year. >> oh, so. >> you're going to move forward. >> so you'll work at opposing the president's request. >> I know how the system works, and I know that it requires 60 votes in the senate to change change government funding. And we're not going to get 60 votes to do anything. So we're going to have a cr. But again, how are you going to help the 5600 people? You say that. >> I'll reclaim my time. I'll reclaim my how are we going to help them?
▶ 3:47:51By fighting to ensure that the president and your party doesn't further erode the little services that we have in this country. If we need housing, not handcuffs, we have a housing crisis in this country, gentlemen. Every time the rent goes up, 100 bucks, homelessness goes up 9%. Let me say it one more time. Every time the rent goes up 100 bucks, homelessness goes up 9%. Homelessness is a housing problem and you have no solutions for us here. You're talking about, again, trying to hide a problem rather than fix a problem.
▶ 3:48:19It is both cheaper and less challenging for us as a nation to keep people housed then yes, to help them when they're on the streets. We need to help people when they're on the streets, but we need to fund rental assistance, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, shelters, all this suite of services that help us keep our people on top of a certain line, because it does cost more and it is harder, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
▶ 3:48:44And the president that you follow and that you, you know, are lauding, wants to make a historic cut to the few services that we have so we can keep people from off the streets. And I think it's despicable. And you come here and try to act like there's a problem with us, because we have a problem with you working to criminalize homelessness. People see beyond. >> that criminal. >> the dc city police are not enforcing it. So I don't I mean, what do you want us to.
▶ 3:49:15>> do. >> tool. The tool you want to give federal law enforcement is allow them to go and arrest people who are sleeping on the streets because they have nowhere else to sleep. We shouldn't be criminalizing homeless people for the failures of government. Let's step up. Let's try to work together and ensure that we eradicate homelessness and fix this housing crisis. I yield back. >> the chair recognizes miss lee. >> uh, thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 3:49:36I just I just I want to say that, you know what the republican what republican policies right now are just hell bent on beating americans down, not lifting them up. And what you all are attempting to do in dc right now is just a forecast for what they actually want for the entire country. And just first of all, before before I even go any further, I just want to state that when we talk about solutions and solution driven policy, this is just not it, right?
▶ 3:50:04This is nothing more than literally criminalizing homelessness. And when we talk about whether or not allowing because allowing allowing somebody to stay in a tent who has nowhere else to go, whether or not it's moral or humane, well, the reality is, is that there's $150 million in grants that would directly eradicate homelessness. That's frozen that that that is not being used. And the trump administration is choosing to do that. We are not solving the problem.
▶ 3:50:32We're not asking ourselves at all right now in this committee. Well, why are people experiencing homelessness? Well, let's think about it. And my colleague from florida got started to get into it. We are in a housing crisis. We know that that isn't a dc thing. That's an american thing. It's all over the country. Wages have been stagnant for decades. Grocery prices have not come down. The student loan crisis is ballooning. Joblessness is at a high. And instead of addressing that, there are more people seeking a job right now than there are jobs for them to get into.
▶ 3:50:59The president is firing the messenger because he doesn't ever want to deal with things, just like the homeless crisis. He wants to sweep that also under the rug. And we also just saw the largest wealth transfer from the poor to the rich in the bill passed by republican and republicans. And this is all after trump forced dc to clear out encampments and then shut down the interagency council on homelessness.
▶ 3:51:23And your republican congressman, well, it's a crime to not have a home, but there won't be any resources to help you. If you are experiencing homelessness, you're going to just be charged and fined and imprisoned, and it's going to make your life harder. Trump and republicans are treating people like they're subhuman people at their lowest. And many of these folks are veterans that served this country. It's callous and it's evil. Criminalization does not end homelessness.
▶ 3:51:52This is lazy and dishonest policy making. We have solutions for the homelessness crisis in this country. Republicans are just refusing to implement them because they don't believe that the cost is worth it. They don't believe it's worth pulling you out of poverty. They don't believe it's worth educating, uh, folks in the district. They don't believe it's worth feeding folks in the district. That's why they cut snap. They don't believe it's worth you being healthy. That's why they cut medicaid. They would rather find and jail you.
▶ 3:52:24They'd rather criminalize you and make your lives even harder, perpetuating these cycles of poverty and inequality. Criminalizing homelessness actually just makes the problem worse. According to research, not just me. Research each move along order or encampment eviction contributes to further marginalization. It perpetuates these cycles of harm. Research shows that when people experiencing homelessness, homelessness are forced to spend time in jail, they're often released with nowhere to stay.
▶ 3:52:51They are often poorer due to loss of possessions, and they may be in worse physical health. Jail time can also disrupt access to public benefits to shelter and other resources, even when detained temporarily. People experiencing homelessness have lost their jobs, their vehicles, their licenses, the very things that can bring them out of the cycle. And when you hold people on cash bail, like the other bill that's up today, proposes to do they lose all of that before they've even been convicted of a crime?
▶ 3:53:20This is what we're seeing, uh, want to see in dc right now. The district has worked to increase their shelter capacity, but it's only a band-aid on the problem because the trump administration has failed to coordinate any federal resources to help find a permanent, long term housing solution or address the root causes.
▶ 3:53:38Dc is already so inaccessible due to the insanely high rent, thriving black and brown communities have been pushed aside and priced out so that wealthy developers can make a larger profit, and congress people can feel more comfortable. Right now, the average rent for a one bedroom apartment in dc is 2300 per month, and the cost of living is 40% higher than the national average. How are people supposed to afford houses here?
▶ 3:54:04This committee doesn't want to end homelessness because if they did, they would be empowering the district with a budget and the resources to tackle the problems themselves. They'd be working to hold developers accountable, raising the minimum wage, expanding mental health care, uh, veteran support, passing medicare for all. But instead, they're here stripping away these folks opportunities to govern themselves. And we still have not passed the billion dollar budget fix in dc. This bill, along with trump's executive order, punishes people for simply existing.
▶ 3:54:32It's not the way that the american people should be treated, especially the people in dc. I urge my colleagues to oppose it and I yield back. >> miss lee, would you yield to a question? >> I don't have any time. >> okay. >> I mean, I'll I'm pretty lenient. I'm just I'm just wondering. >> colleagues on the democratic side keep that in mind. He's very lenient. >> did washington dc have a homeless problem when joe biden was president and. >> the united. >> states has had.
▶ 3:55:02>> a homeless, the united states has had a homeless problem in and out, in and out of administrations. This whole thing pretending that it's a democrat or a republican bill. But let me tell you, when, when when president biden was the president, we had a republican majority in the house. We have a trifecta. Republicans right now. You all have the opportunity to do something different. You know, the solutions that exist. And I'm wondering, when will you propose that, miss trump now? Will you propose them now? >> no. >> no you won't. >> no no no chairman. Since, since since. >> you're being lenient.
▶ 3:55:30Chairman, can I ask a question of the gentlelady? No. >> I'll. I'll recognize. Miss. >> Mr. donaldson is next. Then we'll go to. >> my question. Okay? >> alright. Bye. >> Mr. donald, you will be recognized for five minutes. >> yes, sir. >> you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Um, a couple things. Um, my colleague went through a lot of items, so I'm going to try to address them. Let's talk. Let's start with housing.
▶ 3:55:55If you're going to really talk about housing, one of the big things we have to fix in our country is accessibility to building materials. The reason why accessibility to building materials in the united states continues to rise is because of the overregulation in this town by this congress over decades in washington, dc. So if you want to address housing and the affordability of housing and the attainability of housing may be republicans and democrats, we could work together on something like nepa reform and other regulatory reforms to make it easier to get the materials to build housing in the first place.
▶ 3:56:25I wonder if my democratic colleagues would like to go along with reforming the regulatory process in this town, which increases the financial burden on companies that have to procure the material, to even build the housing, to deliver it to people. Education. I already know where they stand on this one. Republicans. We have long since stood for school choice here in the district of columbia and all across the united states.
▶ 3:56:50If you examine academic attainment in areas that do not have school choice versus those that do, like my home state of florida, it is clear that kids, even at the bottom, are learning at faster rates than they are in other jurisdictions where they don't allow school choice. D.C. has been a a a a tug and a play with school choice. Democrats want to get rid of it. Republicans come back into power. We actually want to provide it. Go talk to the moms in dc.
▶ 3:57:19They want to have a say on where their child goes to school. They want to have an opportunity for their child to succeed. Let's talk about another issue adding to the cost. Because if you want to talk about homelessness, it's housing. And it's also costs energy. My democratic colleagues, all they want to do is have more regulation in the energy space.
▶ 3:57:37They want to have us buy solar panels and windmills from china, as opposed to drilling for oil in the united states, building nuclear power plants in the united states, which is cheaper and readily available energy for everyone. You want to lower the cost of what it takes for somebody to live in an apartment in dc, or anywhere else in the country. How about working with us to lower the per kilowatt hour? Because everybody's got to deal with that rich, middle income poor? Let's talk about public services. This is a good one.
▶ 3:58:06I like talking about this one. Let's talk about this one. Republicans, we have long since believed that people who are really destitute, they should be able to get the help that they need. But what we will not support are bloated programs where we know there is waste, fraud and abuse. And when we go to our democratic colleagues and we say, hey, let's just make sure that the people who qualify are the people that qualify. They say no.
▶ 3:58:30They would rather just have more money, go out the door knowing that it's going to people who are not qualified for the programs. That doesn't make sense. It just doesn't. I heard the talk from my colleague, but again, it was all talk. What was her solutions? Universal health care. That's not a solution. Universal healthcare is failed in every country that it is tried. People want to say, oh, but what about canada? Canada?
▶ 3:58:59Yes, they have a universal system. You know what they also have? They have a private system layered on top for people who are rich. And in some of their people come to the united states to get the procedures they can't get in canada. That's not a solution. You see, folks, oh, let's talk about government spending. This is a good one. There is a false notion in in politics and in this town that if you just spend more money, everything's going to be okay.
▶ 3:59:21The truth is, you can't spend more money when we go as a government to the treasury markets, because we have to borrow the money that doesn't come in taxes, we borrow that money. And when you go borrow that money, what you actually do is decrease the purchasing power of every other dollar in circulation. So the very people that you try to lecture us about saying you want to help, you're hurting because when you develop devalue the purchasing power of every american dollar, the rich guy is going to be alright.
▶ 3:59:52It's the poor who suffer when you devalue our currency because you continue to spend too much and borrow too much. So there are solutions. I say let's work on them. But the left wing solutions that have been brought to this town year over year over year. Oh yeah, they sound good. They sound great in tv ads, but they do not work I yield. >> gentleman yields back. Chair. Mr. simon. >> thank you so much. And I appreciate the conversation.
▶ 4:00:21Um, I don't know how many folks, uh, in this chamber have ever experienced not having a key. Uh, I have, and I was a very, very young woman, and I was a client of an ngo called the homeless prenatal program. And that's exactly what their mission was, is to provide support for pregnant homeless mothers.
▶ 4:00:50And in my five minutes, you know, I just want to lift up the mother that I met in dc who lives with her children in her car. When the police tap on her window at night and demand that she get out, she was forced to tell them that she's waiting for shelter.
▶ 4:01:15After leaving a domestic violence situation that almost killed her. I want to make clear that the dc housing authority, the waitlist has been shut down for over a decade. Families can apply, but they will be on that waitlist for almost a decade. And that is consistent all around the country.
▶ 4:01:41The door is locked even before homeless families knock. I wonder if the author checked in with catholic charities or any of the shelters, and looked at the daily count for the shelters that are open in washington, dc.
▶ 4:02:02We know that folks are kicked out in the daytime if you have done homelessness work, if you worked with homeless families, you know that the shelters are full year round. Shelters in this city are at capacity now. I agree, sleeping on the concrete is beneath human dignity.
▶ 4:02:24I also agree that the job of law enforcement could and should be to bring folks to resource. But understanding that there is no permanent resource, with over a thousand plus people sleeping on the street, that is long term law enforcement under the guise of this amendment, would not be able to serve its intended mission, instead increasing an
▶ 4:02:55Ever so roundabout of arresting and processing and holding homeless folks in detention, which, by the way, is four times as expensive as housing them. We can address poverty together. This committee, this congress. But when you seek to arrest and jail people with no home.
▶ 4:03:21When you seek to arrest and problematize folks who are trying to get treatment when the treatment on demand does not exist, there are no beds. There are no beds. Call any service agency right now in dc, I will wait. We have to actually create solutions instead of creating band-aids where only one half has an adhesive.
▶ 4:03:49I'm all for creating homelessness solutions. I know what a good service agency can do for a homeless family, and pushing that family and that mother to go to school and to live in a safe space without vermin and without violence. I have been there.
▶ 4:04:06Instead, we have an administration that chooses to kick down those small organizations and say that they are d-I, or they're not doing what it costs and propping up institutions that instead criminalized. We know it's inefficient. We know the dollars and cents don't make sense. So let's have that conversation. And for those reasons, I cannot support this amendment. Thank you, I yield back. >> chair.
▶ 4:04:35Recognize ranking member. >> thank you. I want to just add for the record, under unanimous consent, this letter from the national alliance to end homelessness, of course, a strongly oppose this bill. >> without objection. So ordered any other member seek recognition. Mr. randall. >> thank you. Um, Mr.
▶ 4:04:50Chair, my colleague from california just spoke very eloquently about the human experience of trying to find safe housing for you and for your child, for your family.
▶ 4:05:09I think we have to remember, as we debate policy, where we're just looking at tools that criminalizing human beings very rarely gets us to the goal that we think we are heading towards.
▶ 4:05:27You know, we saw, um, a dramatic decrease in violent crime after the affordable care act expanded medicaid, and folks had access to meaningful mental and behavioral health care.
▶ 4:05:43We've seen a dramatic decrease in homelessness when cities and other organizations focus on a housing first model to give people access to a door that closes a key that locks it a safe roof over their heads, we don't often see a dramatic long term decrease in problematic behavior by criminalizing it.
▶ 4:06:10We might like to think that that's the answer, but that alone does not solve any of our problems. There are cities that are in states like utah that are moving back from a housing first model, but I think it's important to like outline that housing first doesn't shouldn't mean housing only giving folks a a place to live is not a cure for all
▶ 4:06:40Mental and behavioral health care needs. It's not a cure for every ill that plagues society, but it is an important first step. Permanent supportive housing programs that wrap around individuals and provide resources and sometimes transportation to get to a job interview or a counseling appointment or substance use disorder treatment. Those are real, proven solutions to homelessness crisis.
▶ 4:07:10And yes, building more housing is a solution to a housing crisis. Uh, I'm open to a debate, probably in another committee about, um, permitting reform and ways to ensure that we are building faster. But I can't leave unmentioned that one of the leading drivers for housing material, uh, price increase, is trump's tariff war. It's driving up the cost of building material married to a carpenter.
▶ 4:07:42I hear about it all the time. Um, but when we're actually focused on meeting people's housing and healthcare needs, we see long term solutions. The money pays off in the long run by getting upstream and meeting those needs before they become chronic, by providing vash vouchers and increasing hud funding, by ensuring that medicaid demonstration projects
▶ 4:08:13Like housing as healthcare are not cut because of the devastating cuts to medicaid that this president and this republican congress have supported criminalizing homelessness and supporting sweeps does nothing but move people out of your line of sight. It doesn't solve our housing crisis.
▶ 4:08:34It moves people to another community, another place where you can't see them, where you don't have to walk by a human being sleeping on the sidewalk. I agree that is not a solution. Human beings sleeping unsheltered on the sidewalk is not aligned with any of our values.
▶ 4:08:54But if we want to actually solve the problem, we have to have real, proven solutions and be willing to invest in the programs that provide the support that we need for real, lasting housing. I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member. >> Mr. chairman. >> chair, does any other member seek recognition? Seeing none.
▶ 4:09:24Uh, the question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, all those in favor signify by saying I. All those opposed? No. In the in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. The question is now on favorably reporting h.r. 5163, as amended. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying no. >> no.
▶ 4:09:51>> in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the bill is ordered favorably reported as amended. >> Mr. chair, recorded vote please. >> a recorded vote is ordered as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Our next item for consideration is h.r. 4922, the D.C. crimes act. The clerk will please designate the bill. >> h.r. 4922, the D.C.
▶ 4:10:08Crimes act, a bill to limit youth offender status in the district of columbia to individuals 18 years of age or younger, and to direct the attorney general of the district of columbia to establish and operate a publicly accessible website containing updated statistics on juvenile crime in the district of columbia and for other purposes. >> without objection, the bill should be considered as read and open for amendment at any point without objection, so ordered. The chair recognizes himself to offer amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk please designate the amendment. >> an amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r.
▶ 4:10:3740 922 is offered by Mr. comer of kentucky. >> without objection, the amendment is considered as read substitute. Be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. I'm now going to recognize the sponsor of the bill, mister donalds, for five minutes. >> uh, thank you, chairman comer, uh, for bringing the D.C. crimes act before committee. Crime in the nation's capital has really been a stain on the great on this great city for far too long.
▶ 4:11:00Um, and it's really the responsibility of decades of, of really weak leadership has allowed it to spiral out of control rather than focusing on cleaning up the city and making it safe for residents and visitors. District officials and the D.C. council have refused to enforce the law. They've put criminals back out on the street and have continuously pursued progressive, soft on crime policies. For instance, the crime data shows that juveniles make up the majority of violent arrests in D.C. from crimes like robbery and carjackings.
▶ 4:11:32And instead of addressing the clear epidemic of youth crime in the city, the D.C. council increased the age of youth offenders to individuals 24 years old and younger. That means fully grown legal adults in the district of columbia can receive sentences meant for children. This is patently insane, and americans across the board are sick of this kind of absurdity. Since the D.C.
▶ 4:11:56Officials have not only known about the city's crime issues for years, but have actively aided and abetted the continuance of it. Congress has a duty, and I stress this again as the federal enclave. Congress has a duty to step in and restore law and order to the capital city of our great nation. The president's actions and immediate decline in crime show that lawlessness is a choice, and we do not have to live with that choice. This is why I've introduced the D.C.
▶ 4:12:26Crimes act. Simply put, my bill lowers dc's definition of youth from under 25 years old to under 18 years old. Two it removes the ability of judges to sentence youth offenders below the mandatory minimum minimum, therefore deterring juvenile crime. And third, it requires the district of columbia's attorney general to establish a public website containing much needed statistics on juvenile crime in washington, D.C.
▶ 4:12:52It is our constitutional duty, as members of congress to oversee the acts happening within the district of columbia. Um, this is something that's really been going on for far too long. The city has not responded to what is clearly not been in the best interest of the nation's capital. And I know that there's many arguments about home rule when it comes to D.C. um, but it should be remembered at all times that our constitution in this matter is clear. The district is a federal enclave.
▶ 4:13:21It is a federal enclave that has not changed since the founding of the republic. And so if the D.C. city council, not its residents, not its residents, if the D.C. city council will not do what is necessary and appropriate to make sure that the washington, D.C. the nation's capital, is safe, then it is a requirement of congress and the president of the united states to do so. Thank you. Chairman, I yield.
▶ 4:13:51>> chair recognizes the ranking member. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. This is just, of course, another attempt by this committee to disenfranchize over 700,000 taxpayers of the district of columbia and their ability to write their own laws, to govern their own city and community. Now, this committee, of course, has now spent more time interfering in dc's local law affairs than almost any other issue. This bill, of course, is trying to amend the youth rehabilitation act. Now, the D.C.
▶ 4:14:19Council's bill, just to be clear, was the subject of months and months of hearings, community meetings, considerable debate. Folks from the neighborhoods actually came together as they worked and crafted this legislation. Now, the considerable debate among dc's residents and their elected representatives should be considered in this moment. That's the way democracy works. And if D.C. residents don't like these policies, they can vote for new policies, or they can vote for new representatives at the local level.
▶ 4:14:47Our committee is not talking about violent crime in louisiana or mississippi or alabama or other places, or federal or federal issues that are important to us, like gun violence or even enforcing the laws that are currently on the books to keep guns out of the wrong hands. But let's talk about what this republican bill would actually do. The D.C. crimes act amends dc's youth rehabilitation act, which allows judges to give alternative sentences to young adults and to seal their conviction records.
▶ 4:15:16Now, my republican colleagues on this committee from alabama, florida, michigan, new york and other places have laws in their states similar to this actual rehabilitation act. The sponsor of this bill, of course, from florida. And we should actually examine florida's youthful offender act. Florida first enacted this law in 1978. That's seven years before D.C. enacted this law. Under florida's law, a person cannot be sentenced to more than six years in prison. Under dc's law, there is no ceiling. In fact, the D.C.
▶ 4:15:45Law is stricter now under both florida and D.C. laws, mandatory minimum sentences can be waived, but the dc crimes act repeals the mandatory minimum waiver, which would be stricter than in florida. Under dc's law, the maximum eligible age for alternative sentencing is 24. That is higher than florida's maximum age, which is 20. The dc crimes act lowers the maximum eligible age to 18.
▶ 4:16:07So to be clear, dc's maximum age is not only an outlier, but the maximum eligible age is higher than in michigan than in dc, and the list goes on and on for different states across the country. Again, regardless of what you think of this bill, we continue to take away the rights of the elected officials that represent this community and continue to move back the progress this community has made through numerous meetings and debate of the council.
▶ 4:16:34We oppose this bill, and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. I recognize myself for five minutes, I support h.r. 4922, a bill providing common sense reforms to the district of columbia criminal code. It's clear to members of the committee and the public that D.C. soft on crime policies, have failed to keep D.C. residents and visitors safe. The D.C. crimes act overturns targeted portions of the D.C.
▶ 4:17:03Council's youth rehabilitation act by amending the definition of a youth offender from a person under the age of 25 to under the age of 18. Let me emphasize dc's current law. Currently, D.C. code allows a criminal under the age of 25 to be given the same leniency that is afforded to minors. This bill requires that we treat adult criminals as adults like the rest of the country.
▶ 4:17:27It also removes judicial discretion to sentence youth offenders under the minimum sentencing structures in place. Our capital cannot continue to let criminals freely roam the streets and expect this crime crisis to end as juvenile crime soars in the district. The bill also requires the D.C. attorney general to create a publicly available website that better tracks juvenile crime data.
▶ 4:17:52This data will inform congress, the district's elected officials, the metropolitan police department, the public, and others on the severity of juvenile crime in the city, citizens of D.C. and visitors to our nation's capital deserve to feel safe. I want to thank representative byron donalds from florida for leading this effort. Again, this congress. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. Do any other members seek recognition? Seeing none.
▶ 4:18:25>> the would like to speak. >> oh, I'm sorry, miss norton. You're recognized for five minutes. Mr. norton from washington, D.C. >> 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. I ask unanimous consent, uh, to enter into the record letters opposing this bill from D.C.
▶ 4:18:57Mayor marion bowser, the entire D.C. council and D.C. attorney general brian schwab. >> without objection, so ordered. >> while the D.C. crimes act is an irredeemable bill, I want to note one positive change to it. As introduced, this bill would have prohibited the D.C. council from increasing or decreasing criminal penalties.
▶ 4:19:26That provision is not included in the version of the bill we are considering today. The substance of this bill should be irrelevant, since there is never justification for congress to legislate on local D.C. matters. However, I will discuss it.
▶ 4:19:49Republicans repeatedly say dc's youth rehabilitation amendment act leads to adults being treated as juveniles. That is false. The sentencing alternatives and set aside options in the youth rehabilitation amendment act apply in adult court to individuals under the age of 25, not juvenile court.
▶ 4:20:18Judges may, but are not required to apply the youth rehabilitation amendment act. The youth retention rehabilitation amendment act is not available for certain crimes. D.C. is the only jurisdiction with a so-called young adult offender law.
▶ 4:20:46Alabama, florida, michigan, new york, south carolina, and vermont have such laws. The sponsor of this bill is from one of those states. The revolutionary war was fought to give consent to the government and to end taxation without representation. Yet D.C. residents cannot consent to any action taken by congress, and they pay full federal taxes in D.C. in debt. Indeed, D.C.
▶ 4:21:14Pays more federal taxes per capita than any state and more federal taxes than 21 states. If republicans cared about democratic principles or D.C. residents, they would take up the D.C. statehood bill, h.r. 51, the washington, D.C. admission act, which gives D.C.
▶ 4:21:44Residents voting representation in congress and full local self-government. Congress, has the authority to admit the state of washington, D.C. is simply lacks the will. I urge members to vote no on the D.C. crimes act, I yield back. >> do any other members seek recognition? Seeing none, the question is now on the amendment. In the nature of a substitute, all those in favor signify by saying I, I.
▶ 4:22:11All those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. The question is now on favorably reporting h.r. 4922, as amended. All those in favor signify by saying I, I all those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The bill is ordered favorably reported, as amended. >> recorded vote. Mr. chairman. >> a recorded vote is ordered as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Our next item for consideration is h.r.
▶ 4:22:415140, the district of columbia juvenile sentencing reform act. The clerk will please designate the bill. >> h.r. 5140, the district of columbia juvenile sentencing reform act, a bill 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. >> without objection, the bill should be considered as read open for amendment at any point. Without objection, so ordered. The chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of substitute. The clerk will designate the amendment. >> an amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r.
▶ 4:23:095140 is offered by Mr. comer of kentucky. >> without objection, the amendment is considered as read. The substitute will be considered as original text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize the sponsor of the bill, uh, Mr. gill from texas, for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. And thank you, uh, for for your seriousness in, uh, bringing law and order back to washington, D.C. Mr. chairman, the american people have a right to live in a country where we aren't being butchered and robbed by career criminals.
▶ 4:23:40The democrat jurisdictions refuse to get off of our streets. We have a right to be able to take public transportation without being murdered. We have a right to be able to walk down the streets without being robbed or raped. We don't have to live under this left wing anarcho tyranny where criminals terrorize innocent people, and that includes juveniles. In 2021, pakistani immigrant mohammed anwar was murdered by two juveniles during a carjacking.
▶ 4:24:11He was an uber eats driver trying to provide a better life for himself here in the us. The two girls, one of which was 15 at the time of the murder, will both be released onto our streets in a few short years when they turn 21. Mr. chairman, the purpose of our justice system is not to rehabilitate criminals. It is to give criminals their just deserts, to lock them up and get them off of our streets so that they cannot harm innocent people. Mr.
▶ 4:24:40Chairman, the number of juveniles arrested in dc has gone up each year since 2020. More than 2000 juveniles were arrested in 2023 and 2024. In the first six months of 2025, there have been 900 arrests of juveniles. Many of these are repeat offenders. In 2024, nearly 200 juveniles arrested for violent crimes had prior violent crime arrests.
▶ 4:25:0652% of all armed robbery arrests in 2024 were juveniles, and 53% of all carjackings in 2025, as of august were from juveniles. Uh, in this city, we do not have to live like this. We do not have to allow thugs of any age to terrorize us. Mr.
▶ 4:25:28Chair, currently, minors 16 years and older, old and older are eligible to have their case moved up to criminal court and to be tried as an adult in dc. 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 assault, burglary in the first degree, and robbery while armed. For instance.
▶ 4:25:56These are violent, heinous, horrific offenses that require stronger sentencing to reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to charge juveniles who commit serious violent crimes as adults. And with that, I yield back, Mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back. Chair. Ranking member. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 4:26:20I want to strongly oppose this sentencing reform act that's in front of us. Of course, this would lower the age of eligibility for children to be tried as adults in dc from 16 to 14 years for, of course, certain criminal offenses. Now, I just want to be clear, 14 year old is not an adult. A 14 year old is barely out of middle school, and there are good public safety reasons to avoid charging juveniles as adults. But especially I want to talk about what's in front of us right now.
▶ 4:26:50Now, youth charged as adults are more likely to reoffend than youth and juvenile courts. That is a fact consistently supported by research. When you look at what's happening across the country now, the centers for disease control task force on community preventive services reviewed decades and decades of research and also concluded that sending youth to the adult system actually increases the rates of violence, doesn't decrease the rates of violence.
▶ 4:27:18A report from the national research council support a policy of keeping punishment proportional with age to prevent additional offending, which this bill would make fundamentally impossible across the district. This legislation would also deepen the racial disparities that currently exist in the district's juvenile justice system. And like other bills that are in front of us, we have to come back to the community. Why do we keep trying to take away the ability for D.C. to govern itself?
▶ 4:27:46And let's also look at the folks that make up this community. They should be given the ability to govern themselves. I also want to push back on some of the characterizations that have been made about this bill. Now, we know that compared to states, the district already has the highest youth incarceration rate in the us. We know that as a fact. It's more than three times higher than the national average.
▶ 4:28:10This bill once again interferes with dc's self-government and their work and try and trying to reduce this. This bill would not make D.C. safer. It would deepen existing racial disparities and push more young people deeper into the adult juvenile system. We as a group, as a body, should urge all of our colleagues to vote no on this legislation. And with that, I yield back. >> gentleman. Yields back. Chair. Recognize miss norton from washington, D.C.
▶ 4:28:41>> thank you, mister chairman. 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. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters opposing this bill from D.C. mayor marion bowser, the entire D.C. council, and D.C. attorney general brian schwab.
▶ 4:29:12>> without objection, so ordered. >> while congress has the authority to legislate on local matters, it does not have the duty to do so. In federalist 43, james madison said of D.C. residents, and I quote a municipal legislature for local purposes derived from their local, from their own services. Suffrages will, of course, be allowed them. Close quote.
▶ 4:29:42Since 1802, congress has created different local governments for D.C. in 1953, the supreme court held that, quote, there is no constitutional barrier to delegation, to delegation by congress, to the district of columbia for full legislative power.
▶ 4:30:06Close quote, the substance of this bill is irrelevant, since there is never justification for congress to legislate to legislate on D.C. local matters. But I will briefly discuss it. I strongly oppose charging 14 year olds as adults.
▶ 4:30:27However, whether to reduce or increase the minimum wage to be charged as an adult should be a decision for D.C. alone. I respect dc's home rule.
▶ 4:30:45In a series of cases since 2005, the supreme court has recognized that children are constitutionally different from adults for the purpose of sentencing. End quote.
▶ 4:31:01In these cases, the court noted that childhood is marked by, quote, rashness, proclivity for risk, and inability to assess consequences.
▶ 4:31:18Close quote the court said in its decisions, quote, rested said that its decisions, quote, rested not only on common sense, but on what any parent knows, but on science and social science as well. Close quote.
▶ 4:31:43This bill is both cruel and counterproductive. Most incarcerated people eventually come home. The evidence shows that congress charged as adults, that children charged as adults are more likely to re-offend and be violent then children charged as juveniles.
▶ 4:32:13I urge members to vote no on this bill, and I yield back. >> to lee yields back. Before I recognize miss simon, I ask unanimous consent to enter the following press release from the united states attorney's office, district of columbia, into the record. On june 30th, 21 year old eric tarpinian, uh, an intern with the house of representatives, was murdered in D.C. we now know from U.S.
▶ 4:32:43Attorney jeanine pirro that the 217 year old suspects, recently arrested had a documented history of family court violence. Without objection. So ordered. Chair now recognizes miss simon. >> thank you.
▶ 4:32:55Chair, and I would like to extend my remarks today in memory of james r bell, who's the founder of the haywood burns institute and one of the nation's premier minds who sought justice for young people who were and have been and will continue to be, uh, systematized in the adult courts. Mr. chair, I strongly oppose h.r.
▶ 4:33:245140, the juvenile justice sentencing act, for many reasons. We're talking about 14 year olds. In fact, my 14 year old is in the chamber right now. She forgot her keys. She's a ninth grader. She's a child. She's a child. H.r. 5140 would allow children as young as my youngest daughter.
▶ 4:33:46My youngest daughter would deny them the protections of the juvenile court and placed them in the adult criminal justice system. To pass this bill would be to unravel one of the most important reforms in american history. In 1899, this nation created the first juvenile court in cook county, illinois.
▶ 4:34:10We did so because americans recognized what science and common sense has made plain that children are not adults. The principle became law because we knew that across the country, we knew. We knew that transforming young people out of literally horrific behavior requires rehabilitation.
▶ 4:34:34The founders of the juvenile justice system believe that rehabilitation is not a weakness, but the strongest form of accountability. The data has borne that out. The centers for disease control found that young people transferred into adult courts are 34%, 34% more likely to prevent violent crimes upon release than their counterparts who moved through the juvenile court system, the department of justice has confirmed
▶ 4:35:05Repeatedly that the transfer and transfer laws do not reduce crime. They in fact increase it. The claim that prosecuting children as adults and putting them in adult prisons cages defers and deters violence is not supported by a single. A single credible study.
▶ 4:35:25True accountability means facing the harm that has been caused, making amends and working through treatment as children, through education, through hard core accountability and behavior change.
▶ 4:35:39States like missouri and connecticut have pioneered therapeutic models where even young people committed of the most serious and violent crimes receive intensive supervision, counseling, and restorative justice processes that include and center the victims. The result has resulted in lower recidivism rates, greater public safety, and more lives redeemed. That is, accountability that works. This bill does not advance safety.
▶ 4:36:11It is bringing about more regression in a system that has continuously failed around the world. Democracies like germany, democracies like sweden and japan invest heavily in rehabilitation. Their children come home safer and their communities are stronger because of it. Because of that commitment to rehabilitation, these countries that lock 14 years old children up in adult prisons, they're not models of justice, not models of safety.
▶ 4:36:43These countries that put children into cages, they are warnings. And I know what real safety looks like. Over the last three decades, I helped design and implement initiatives that have cut youth recidivism by over 70%. Most recently, I led a comprehensive plan that reduced crime in our local transit system that has decreased crime by 40%.
▶ 4:37:05These results don't come from abandoning children to adult jails. They come from believing that young people, even the ones who commit the most heinous and serious crimes, can be held accountable, and that these young people can change and make amends. The choice is up to us, and the choice is stark.
▶ 4:37:31Either we honor the founding promise of the juvenile justice system, or we join the ranks of nations around the world that treat children as disposable. Either we follow evidence and history towards safer communities, or we legislate out of fear and condemn children to cycles of crime. This bill is not justice. In fact, it is a retreat from it. I urge my colleagues to reject h.r. 5140 and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back.
▶ 4:38:01Any other member seek recognition? Seeing none. The question is now. On favorably reporting h.r. 5140 oh. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
▶ 4:38:29The question is now on favorably reporting h.r. 5140, as amended. All those in favor signify by saying I, I all those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The bill is ordered favorably reported. >> recorded vote, Mr. chairman. >> recorded vote is ordered as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed.
▶ 4:39:21>> our next item for consideration is h.r. 5001 81, the soar act improvements act. The clerk will please designate the bill. >> h.r. 5181, the soar act improvements act, a bill to amend the scholarships for opportunity and results act to make improvements in the program for awarding school choice scholarships to students in the district of columbia. >> without objection, the bill should be considered as read and open for amendment at any point without objection, so ordered. The chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
▶ 4:39:51The clerk will designate the amendment. >> an amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 5081 is offered by Mr. gill of texas on behalf of Mr. comer of kentucky. >> without objection, the amendment is considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as original text for the purposes of further amendment, I will now recognize myself for five minutes for statement on the bill and the amendment.
▶ 4:40:12Is a I support the soar act improvements act, which would extend the dc opportunity scholarship program authorization for seven years, the dc opportunity scholarship program provides low income children in dc with scholarships so they can attend a private school in the district. Dc has the second highest rate of chronic absenteeism in the country.
▶ 4:40:38During the 2023 to 2024 school year, at over 30%, these numbers have increased 110% over the past decade, with the problem increasing five times for middle schoolers compared to a decade ago. Unsurprisingly, when teenagers are unsupervised and not regularly attending school, they're more likely to commit crimes.
▶ 4:40:59To truly address juvenile crime, it's imperative that the committee support educational opportunities wherever we can to ensure every dc student has access to a high quality education. Since its inception, the dc opportunity scholarship has consistently received more applications than it can fulfill and has proven successful. Extending the scholarship program will reward students who are serious about their education and are seeking better opportunities for themselves and their families.
▶ 4:41:30I thank representative fox for her leadership on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support. I now recognize the ranking member for his statement. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I strongly oppose this act improvements act. Let's actually talk about what this bill actually does. This bill cuts federal funding for public schools and increases funding for a failed federal private school voucher program. So let's say that, again, this bill actually cuts funding for D.C.
▶ 4:41:56Public schools at the same time that they're trying to eliminate the department of education, as we've heard throughout the majority and their debates in congress, it's clear they also want to destroy public education nationally and here in the district. They also want to redirect federal funding to private schools, which are unaccountable to the public. Now, the voucher law creates loopholes to exempt participating schools from federal civil rights laws that otherwise apply to all schools that receive federal funding.
▶ 4:42:23Our tax dollars could go to unaccountable, discriminatory schools. More seriously, these programs just don't work for students. And if you look at legislative history, house republicans know and have admitted their own actions, that these programs just don't work. Republicans have conducted study after study to evaluate this policy, and they've repeatedly found that the program did not improve academic achievement as measured by math and reading tests.
▶ 4:42:48Instead of abandoning the policy, they've responded by trying to rig the studies, progressively lowering the research standards. Now, the D.C. council is the only one. Is the only one accountable to the residents? Of course not congress or the house majority. The council has authority to create a private school program. It has not done so because residents do not want one. And as a as a reminder for us at this moment, we know that private schools also can pick and choose which students they also want to serve.
▶ 4:43:15When you think about students with additional needs, students with disabilities, it is the public school system that is there that steps in to provide services for these students and removing funding away from these public schools is incredibly dangerous for the students and the families that need that support. Now, I oppose reauthorizing the program, increasing funding for the program, or reducing funding for this being presented. Instead of considering the soar act improvements act, we should be holding an oversight hearing on the actual program.
▶ 4:43:45I urge members to vote no on this bill and I yield back. >> I ask unanimous consent to enter the letters of support from the following organizations for h.r. 5001 81 into the record, the american federation for children and the defense of freedom institute. Action. Tijuana allen on behalf of dc opportunity scholarship families and the roman catholic archdiocese of washington and the united states conference of catholic bishops.
▶ 4:44:11I now, without objection, I now recognize miss norton from washington, dc for five minutes for a statement on the bill. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I strongly oppose this bill. The private school voucher program that congress imposed on D.C. in 2004 was the first and remains the only federally funded private school voucher program.
▶ 4:44:38I asked unanimous consent to enter into the record letters opposing this bill from D.C. mayor muriel bowser, the entire D.C. council and D.C. attorney general brian schwelb. >> without objection. >> why this congress has extended the program nationally.
▶ 4:45:02Perhaps it is because the program has failed to improve reading or math test scores, as measured by randomized control trials. Or perhaps it is because the students that participate in the program are denied the protection of federal civil rights laws that protect students in public schools.
▶ 4:45:30Or perhaps it is because private school voucher programs are unpopular with voters. This bill not only reauthorizes a program that fails to improve test scores, denies students the protection of federal civil rights laws and lacks accountability or meaningful oversight.
▶ 4:45:52It also ends the long standing practice of authorizing equal funding for programs. The D.C. public school system and the D.C. public charter school system.
▶ 4:46:12While it keeps total funding the same, it changes the allocations by increasing funding for the program and reducing funding for the D.C. public school system. This bill also continues to weaken the evaluation standards for the program.
▶ 4:46:36After multiple randomized controlled trials found the program did not improve test scores, republicans weakened the evaluation standards in 2017, and this bill further weakens them. Congress should prohibit new students from participating in the program and redirect the funding that would otherwise go to new students, to D.C.
▶ 4:47:04Public schools, to the D.C. public school system and the D.C. public charter school system. D.C. has robust public school choice. Nearly 50% of D.C. public school students attend a charter schools, and 75% of public school students attend out of boundary schools they have chosen.
▶ 4:47:33I urge a no vote on this bill, and I yield back. >> I now recognize the gentlewoman from north carolina, doctor fox, for five minutes for a statement on the bill. >> thank you very much, Mr. chairman. It's long been my mission in in congress.
▶ 4:47:53And before I came to congress to make sure that every child is afforded access to a high quality education, perhaps one of the most glaring contrasts we see in educational outcomes for school children is right here in the nation's capital.
▶ 4:48:16And I'm I'm really concerned about a comment that one of our colleagues made that the, um, uh, program that we're talking about has been imposed upon this children in D.C. what's been imposed upon them is a failed education system. Mediocrity is not even a good word for it.
▶ 4:48:46Despite the presence of some excellent schools in the city, many children will never be afforded an opportunity to access a high quality education, which I know from experience. My own experience can change the trajectory of a child's life. The D.C. opportunity scholarship program, or D.C.
▶ 4:49:11Osp, is a proven bipartisan program that opens doors for many low income students to receive a scholarship to attend a high performing private school in washington, D.C. these students can receive a high quality education. While they may be otherwise left behind in underperforming schools. And again, that's a polite way of saying it.
▶ 4:49:38This program provides real school choices for families and has been repeatedly studied and evaluated. The results show that participants in the program thrive and see higher rates of high school graduation and the pursuit of post-secondary education. The soar act improvements act reauthorized reauthorizes, D.C.
▶ 4:50:07Osp through 2032 and authorizes $60 million per year to allow the program to continue admitting new students. Since its creation, the D.C. osp has been oversubscribed, which has meant that many eligible school children are missing out on the opportunity to receive a great education right here in washington, D.C.
▶ 4:50:31This bill also provides important flexibilities for the program administrators that will allow more children to use the program. While we have seen a staggering increase in juvenile crime in D.C.
▶ 4:50:45Since the pandemic, it is more important now than ever to provide pathways for school children to succeed and learn instead of staying forgotten on the sidelines, I urge my colleagues to support the soar act, improvement act, and I yield back. >> doctor fox yields back. Chair. Miss crockett, Mr. bell.
▶ 4:51:14>> you know, as a former educator, um, I have to question my colleagues. Um, are they really looking at the policy? Um, and what is good public policy? Um, we're reducing funding for public schools and then wondering why students aren't performing as well. They don't have the resources.
▶ 4:51:41And so the solution is not to fully fund our public schools and give them the resources they need. They suggest the solution is to reduce funding more and then give that funding to private schools, which is public funding, taxpayer money that then private schools get to pick and choose what students they take. And then we got a whole bunch of kids that are just left behind. And so when my colleague says every child has to have access.
▶ 4:52:10I agree with that. How does this get us to that? Um, um, to to that goal. Um, and so I think that what this bill does is take away access. It takes away resources, and it shifts those resources, um, in many cases away from the kids who need it most. And this is terrible policy.
▶ 4:52:35And when we talk about safety, public safety, there is a correlation between schools that do not have resources and higher crime rates. So these are there's an intersection here that if we start looking at the root causes again, we're going to get back to that word. And we start actually coming up with real solutions to these problems. We can actually see more positive outcomes for our kids who absolutely deserve it. I yield to the ranking member. >> thank you so much.
▶ 4:53:07>> and I just want to echo what, um, congressman bell was just saying, you know, there seems to be a theme, um, republicans love to talk about how they are looking out for our children, and they are trying to do what's best for them. Yet we still haven't seen any adequate gun legislation to protect them while they're in these schools. Um, and now that we're dealing with their education, um, we're talking about $30 million being set aside.
▶ 4:53:36And right now we have approximately 1400 students that take advantage of being able to kind of go into the private school situation for osp. So that amounts to approximately $21,000 per student. That is going to a private school.
▶ 4:53:55But if we look at the 52,000 students that are in the public school, um, then we're talking about approximately $192 per student, and then we start to talk about charter. Now, do y'all think charter is getting less or more since charter is somewhere between private and public? You guessed it right. When it comes to the charter students, then they are giving charter students $425 approximately per student. How is that equitable?
▶ 4:54:27I mean, I know that y'all hate the idea of the word diversity, and you don't like equity and you don't like inclusion, but gosh darn it, we're talking about kids. And the idea that when someone goes to a public school, they can't be turned away. They have to take that student. But when it comes to the private schools, they can absolutely cherry pick and decide who it is that they want to take and who it is they don't want to take.
▶ 4:54:54And somehow, if you end up being one of the prized students that they want to take, maybe because you lack diversity, then you'll get access to $21,000. But if you are a student who is just as capable, if not more than capable, somehow you'll only have access to approximately $192 for your public education.
▶ 4:55:18The public education that the people at least have some accountability over because they have the ability to elect who's going to sit on school boards and things like that. Unlike at the private schools. And unlike what we look at at the charters, and for some reason we complain about waste, fraud and abuse, especially in this committee.
▶ 4:55:36And you're telling me that you believe that the american people are going to say, yes, send our tax dollars off to those private schools, the private schools that most likely this administration has, some cronies that actually own that they're going to profit from. There is a theme in this congress.
▶ 4:55:54It is do everything that we can to line the pockets of the already rich and make sure that those that are struggling and need resources the most are going to be the ones that are sitting there holding the bag, being told to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. And when they don't, you blame them. I'll yield. >> gentlelady yields. >> yeah.
▶ 4:56:20>> I was just saying I went to public school, so I don't know what you're talking about. On the private school stuff. >> I did. >> okay. >> I thought you went to private school. >> I went to both. >> okay. How about that? Alright. >> and we we even have private schools where I came from. >> my mama paid. >> for it, so. >> just. >> hold that down, chair. >> any other member seek recognition? >> Mr. chair, I have an amendment at the desk. >> are you seeking recognition on amendment no? Oh, you want to speak on that? Okay. Chair recognizes Mr. frost.
▶ 4:56:51>> yeah. Sorry. I'm speaking on my amendment. >> oh. Any other debate on on the the bill before we get into the five amendments. >> uh, Mr. chairman, yes? I wonder if I could, um, make a. A parliamentary inquiry of the chairman. >> state your inquiry. >> uh, are you aware, Mr.
▶ 4:57:12Chairman, that 95% of the children who are participating in the, um, scholarship program are african american or hispanic? Uh, did you know that. >> I did not, yes. >> there's a question about diversity. The other question is, Mr. chairman, did you know that the family. >> chairman, is this a parliamentary. >> inquiry about family? >> I don't. >> think this is a parliamentary inquiry. >> this a parliamentary inquiry? >> yeah. It is.
▶ 4:57:43>> Mr. >> it's well, did you know that the the family. >> chair I would ask that the gentlelady suspend until. >> we can get a ruling as to whether or not this is a proper parliamentary inquiry. >> it I ruled it was not but I, I did not know that again, I went to public schools. We didn't have private schools where I grew up. >> so then then we. >> still learned about private schools. >> okay. >> any other member seek recognition? Uh, I'm going to recognize, uh, Mr.
▶ 4:58:10Frost, what purpose do you seek? Recognition. >> Mr. chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. >> will the clerk please report the amendment and distribute the amendment to all members? Oh, oh oh, do you want to. I failed to recognize miss green to debate on the bill. So you have five minutes. >> Mr. comer, this isn't about the bill. I'd ask. I'd like to ask for prayer for charlie kirk. It's being reported that he's been shot at an event. >> oh, my. Wow. Well.
▶ 4:58:43>> uh. >> have a moment of silence. Thank you. For pointing that out. Any other member seek recognition? All right, now, Mr.
▶ 4:59:12Uh, the clerk, have you distributed the amendment to all the members? All right. Uh, we designate the amendment. >> an amendment to amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 5181 is offered by Mr. frost of florida. >> uh, without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. The gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes to explain his first amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 4:59:34School voucher programs have many flaws that can and have been used by bad actors to steal money from the government, trick parents, and rob our children of the quality education needed to succeed outright. Scam schools are not the only problem that school voucher programs create. Others have underqualified teachers and staff, voucher schools and D.C.
▶ 4:59:55In my home state of florida and across the country, are allowed to operate at lower standards than our public schools, while steering money away from those same public schools. This means worse education outcomes for all students. There are a lot of things broken within dc's voucher program. So this is my first of three amendments on this bill. I'm also glad that several of my colleagues have offered amendments so we can deal with this voucher system's many problems.
▶ 5:00:24My first amendment requires schools to be accredited by the list of accrediting agencies in the D.C. school reform act of 1995. If they want to receive vouchers. This simply requires dc's voucher schools to meet the same standards as dc's charter schools. In the 1995 act, specifically names uh, several respected accrediting bodies in order to qualify for the voucher program.
▶ 5:00:50This bill today just says a school must be accredited by, quote, a national or regional accrediting body. What does that even mean? There is no definition in this bill, and the language seems designed to shield these schools against oversight, accountability and any meaningful qualifications. And what's worse is that the bill allows a school five years to get this mysterious accreditation. So they get the money for five years.
▶ 5:01:17They don't have to get that accreditation, which means that an entire middle or high school, uh, schoolers classes could move through the schools without having any accreditation of any kind. We can't allow this because dc's voucher schools already underperform across all metrics when compared with the public schools. This was the conclusion of two recent department of education studies. Reading scores are worse.
▶ 5:01:43They had less instructional time, and there's also a reduction in math scores equivalent to those kids in new orleans after katrina. Another analysis showed that the average learning loss from attending a dc voucher school, compared to going to public school, was the same as missing 68 days of class. It's not surprising. Research also shows that the longer a student is in a voucher school, the farther they fall behind.
▶ 5:02:13The department of education had almost completed a third extensive study on the dc voucher program before the trump administration abruptly scrapped it last year. I wonder what the evidence was showing. These are frustrating, but they're not surprising facts, and they mimic what we see across the entire nation. Poorly regulated vouchers are a tax dollar wasted and a kids future.
▶ 5:02:39College, trade school or employment endangered for dc's children, families, and future. I ask my colleagues to support this common sense amendment to make sure that none of the district's children are left behind in subpar voucher schools. It is making the standards the same with the public schools, the charter schools, um, and these voucher schools. I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Uh, do you recognize doctor fox?
▶ 5:03:11>> um, thank you, Mr. chairman. Um, I do want to go back to what my, um, my comment to you earlier was that, um, 95% of the children participating in the dc scholarship program are african american or hispanic, but they do remarkably better in with the scholarships than, um, and in the schools that they attend.
▶ 5:03:41Then students do in the, quote, regular public schools in dc and the average family income is less than 27,000 a year. So giving a scholarship to these families and the students is really a lifeline to a better education.
▶ 5:04:05The dc schools have been known for years to be totally inadequate, and what this amendment does is it would limit the number of qualifying schools and weaken the program. Yes, the students would have access to schools that are not currently accredited, but they have the opportunity to work on accreditation. But Mr.
▶ 5:04:28Chairman, the dc children in the failing school that are going to failing schools that are already accredited. So this makes no sense.
▶ 5:04:40Would you rather go to uh have have a scholarship that will let you go to a school that is performing well, whether it's accredited currently or not, or go to a failing schools and be limited in your educational opportunity. It would reduce it, reduce access to high performing schools.
▶ 5:05:06You do not have to be, um, a accredited to be a high performing school in any city, and especially not in dc. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, which is simply another attempt to undermine the scholarship program that has worked so successfully in this, um, in this city.
▶ 5:05:35Um, and I just don't understand, and neither do most of the people in this country. Why there is an attempt to force, particularly minority students to stay in the failing schools, unless it is an it is because these people simply support the unions, not the children.
▶ 5:06:01Our goal, those of us who support the opportunity scholarships is we support high quality education for these students. We are we don't support. We're not victims of the unions. And so this is a terrible amendment that needs to be voted down, I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. Any other member seek recognition?
▶ 5:06:31Miss crockett. >> thank you so much. Um, I support this commonsense amendment by congressman frost, and I thank him for offering it. Students in the dc voucher program should be protected from unaccredited schools. We have seen three consistent things about the voucher program since republicans created it 20 years ago. The program has failed to improve academic achievement as measured by reading and math scores.
▶ 5:06:56Republicans continue to weaken the evaluation requirements for the program, and republicans continue to allow unaccredited schools to participate in the program. The bill would allow schools first participating in the program after enactment of the bill five years. Let me repeat that five years to become accredited. That is ridiculously weak when it comes to standards. Accreditation helps ensure that schools provide a high quality education.
▶ 5:07:25The federal government requires colleges and universities to be accredited to receive federal funds. It is even more important that schools participating in federally funded D.C. voucher programs, which educate students during key developmental years, also be accredited. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record. A washington post investigation of the program, titled quality controls lacking for D.C. schools accepting federal vouchers.
▶ 5:07:55>> without objection, so ordered. >> now, let me go on and deal with this, because y'all want to talk about my education, because maga loves to talk about my education. Let me tell you something I got it, I got degrees, okay? I can count them off for you if you want me to. And I am proud of that. But let me tell you, it was no thanks to any republicans that I got my education. Um, my mom, regardless of what tropes y'all might like to put out there about black folk, um, or government workers, let me be clear. My mom has been a federal government worker my entire life.
▶ 5:08:23She has worked hard for this federal government, regardless of all the nonsense and the terrible things you say about federal government employees. And somehow she managed to raise me, but she still wasn't getting paid her due. Like most of us that work for the federal government. So would my mom. Do my mom work multiple jobs? I know that there are tropes out there that act like black folk are the ones that are always looking out for a handout, but my mom worked multiple jobs to make sure that she could pay to send me to private school. So yes, I went to private school.
▶ 5:08:53I went to private school from seventh grade all the way through high school, and then I earned a scholarship to attend college at a private school, the same one that amy coney barrett attended. Yes, we both attended rhodes college, and then I earned another scholarship so that I could go to law school. Let me tell you something. My academic success. It started in public school. Public school was my foundation. So pre-k through six. Yes, I believe in pre-k. I was in public school.
▶ 5:09:21Unfortunately, it was too dangerous for me to go and matriculate through the junior high as well as the high school. In addition to the fact that when it came to the standardized test, I typically was at the top of the standardized test in the state. And so my mom wanted to challenge me to the best of her ability. So that is what she did. She did not look to the federal government and say, I've decided I want to send my child to a private school.
▶ 5:09:48So therefore the federal government needs to give me this money instead of making it an inequitable situation for other students that are literally not in the same situation. Yes, I got accepted to private school because my parents worked with me even when I got out of public school, because they had that luxury of being able to do that, and because both of my parents happened to be college educated and they could help me to do my work.
▶ 5:10:17But nevertheless, regardless of my education, because I've done both, I can actually be an advocate. And I understand the difference. And I do believe in the importance of having a sound public education.
▶ 5:10:33And maybe my mom would not have had to work so many jobs if there had not been people siphoning money out of our public schools, to the extent that she felt like they were not going to be able to challenge me, her gifted child, as I was continuing to grow.
▶ 5:10:50So all we're saying is, if you're going to give out 20 something thousand to $21,000 as it relates to these 1400 students per child, then give out the same $21,000 for this students that are in public school. That's it. We're looking for equity, something that y'all don't like. I know it's a bad word, but we're looking for equity. And I know that the gentlelady from north carolina wants to brag about how many black and brown children. I will remind her.
▶ 5:11:17One of the reasons the president has a problem with the city of D.C. right now is because it's black and brown. That's what it is. I mean, it would be odd if, like the vast majority of the people that are taking advantage are not black and brown. That's the city, okay, I yield. >> alright. Any other members seek recognition? Seeing none. The question is now on the frost amendment. Number one.
▶ 5:11:45All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I, I. >> all those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> Mr. chair, I ask for a recorded vote. >> a recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. For what purpose does Mr. frost seek recognition? >> Mr. chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. >> will the clerk please report. >> amendment number two to the amendment? In the nature of a substitute to h.r. 5181 is offered by Mr. frost of florida.
▶ 5:12:14>> without objection, the amendment is considered as red. I reserve a point of order. The gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes to explain the frost amendment. Number two. >> Mr. chairman, this amendment addresses an issue that I'm very familiar with in florida, and it's happening here in D.C. to see florida's voucher system almost has zero oversight. And as a result, my home state is riddled with scam. Schools that open up, take a bunch of vouchers and then disappear or float away.
▶ 5:12:42And they're gone in just a few years, existing solely on voucher students government checks. These scam schools prey especially on our immigrant communities, using language barriers or religious affiliation, and a lack of understanding of our education system to rip families off and stunt the educational growth of their children.
▶ 5:13:01For example, something calling itself the south florida academy had large number of students crammed into a rotating locations in strip malls, church foyers and even public parks. They taught without any curriculum, but had corporal punishment. Teenagers without driver's license drove the kids between locations one time, resulting in a fatal car crash.
▶ 5:13:26Faith christian academy, located between tampa and orlando, simply made up extra students and pocketed the funds. The head of the school and five relatives pocketed more than $200,000 in taxpayer state voucher money intended for disabled children who didn't even attend the school. They use it to pay for property, cars, restaurant meals, plane tickets and their personal cell phone bills.
▶ 5:13:53This bill sponsor may be familiar with this problem, because at least one voucher school in north carolina has made up students as well. These are not isolated examples. A single florida department of education investigation resulted in dozens of scam schools being closed down. This was after ripping off my state to the tune of $50 million. That's money that our public schools could really use.
▶ 5:14:21Without voucher programs, these scam schools wouldn't exist. The vast majority of their students use use vouchers because almost no one would spend their own money on them. And as soon as we see a state start voucher program, we see an explosion of new private schools suddenly appearing to help ensure that voucher schools are, in fact, real private schools.
▶ 5:14:44This amendment would require voucher students to make up no more than 50% of the school's enrollment. In order for the school to qualify for vouchers. I offer this amendment because D.C. has the same problem florida has with scam schools that pop up in storefronts or even private homes. Some some of these schools don't even have bathrooms. Some teach learning through stretching or meditation.
▶ 5:15:09And of the 82 schools that have been part of dc's voucher program since 2003, 35 of them almost half have already closed down, while another seven were forced out of the program because they could not meet the program's already low standards after years of trying. That's a total failure rate of over half. Whether it's whether or not a kids school is actually teaching them should not have the same odds as a coin flip.
▶ 5:15:38This amendment will guard against the greatest waste the greatest wasters, fraudsters and abusers of the D.C. voucher program. It's common sense. Let's fight against these scam schools, especially when our tax dollars are at risk. I urge my colleagues to support it and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Do any member seek recognition on the first amendment? Number two. Chair. Chair. Doctor. Fox. >> uh, thank you very much, Mr. chairman.
▶ 5:16:05Um, the first thing that, uh, I think needs to be said is we need to correct the record. There's some wildly small figure that was being bandied about earlier. Um, but the real number, uh, of the amount of money that's being given to the public schools per student, it's it's the total number is 1,000,664,000
▶ 5:16:35$792,000 being given to the D.C. public system, which comes out to, for the public schools, $33,365 per student. I don't know where, uh, my colleagues across the aisle came up with the numbers, but it might be, uh, interesting to point out that, um, only 12, only a third of that money goes to actual
▶ 5:17:06Instruction of the students. And maybe what they're doing is dividing by the number of students, um, in the public schools, because the schools give approximately one third of the money to the support system. What whatever that is probably administrative. So they're putting almost as much money into, um, the administrative costs as they are into, um, direct instructional costs.
▶ 5:17:36And so the other comments that need to be made on this, um amendment is it states no more than half the children at a school may be participants in the opportunity scholarship program that's going to artificially limit access to schools that may be especially popular or high performing, and it limits choices for families.
▶ 5:18:03It undermines also the intent of the opportunity scholarship program. And I, I think, um, Mr. frost is is maligning other other schools. Um, to try to make his point. I haven't had a chance, obviously, to, um, investigate the schools that he's maligning in florida, but I suspect that, um, that there are people who would be defending those institutions.
▶ 5:18:29I can't do that, not having known, uh, what they're doing, but but that's my guess. Um, so I oppose the amendment. Um, we ought to vote it down. >> uh, would you yield for a minute? >> uh, yes. >> well, just to say this isn't, you know, hearsay or anything.
▶ 5:18:52The information I'm saying about these scam schools in florida comes from an investigation that the florida department of education did, which, by the way, you know, our our governors, governor ron desantis or someone I'm not a fan of, uh, but his own is is his own. His administration is the one that came out with these. So this is a pervasive problem across the country. >> that you're speculating that that there are schools in dc.
▶ 5:19:17If there's if there are problems with the schools in dc, then just give us some examples of those. Instead of saying, this could be happening, it isn't happening. >> well, if. You there. >> I did. >> give examples. I'm reclaiming my time. Thank you, Mr. chair. >> uh, gentlelady yields back. Chair recognizes. >> okay. >> you won't. >> hear me. I think he's. >> Mr. bell for five minutes.
▶ 5:19:48>> I yield my time to the gentleman from florida. >> thank you. And I did spend time talking about D.C. schools that have these issues. I'm going to read this part one more time. Of the 82 schools that have been part of the dc voucher program since 2003, 35 of them almost half have already closed down, while another seven were forced out of the program because they were not meeting the already abysmally low standards after years of trying. So that means over half of the schools failed.
▶ 5:20:21And and I think that's an important thing for us to keep in mind. I bring up florida because this is a pervasive issue in my state. We've continued to expand these voucher programs year after year. It is at the detriment of our public schooling and our public school system. And we and just something I haven't said yet that we have to say here, that's important. I think the reason why so many republicans are, for so many republicans in congress and in leadership support these type of programs, is they want to privatize public education completely.
▶ 5:20:51And so they want to continue to defund it, defund it, siphon money from public schools to private schools so they can break it. And then when they break it, they can sell it. And that's what this is all about. It's what's going on in state of florida, too. And our public school teachers, our officials work hard with not a lot of resources, with not a lot of money. My mom just retired as a public school educator of 37 years. Special education.
▶ 5:21:15For all of those years, I saw her spend thousands of her own dollars to put stuff up in her classroom. I saw her stay up late at night, night after night, doing her ieps, making sure her kids were okay and they had what they needed. The solution here is this is the thing that happens all the time on this committee is you all complain about something and then you say, well, let's take away a bunch of money from it and resources and capacity from it. Maybe then they'll do better.
▶ 5:21:43It makes no sense. And that's what this bill does to ripping away money from D.C. public schools that, yes, need help, need resources and giving them the private institutions. And it's the same thing. Like what just happened with the big ugly bill. It's to make sure that billionaires and mega corporations, corporations can make more money at the detriment of working class americans and the working poor. I give the time back to Mr. bell.
▶ 5:22:14>> I yield to the ranking member for the remainder of my time. To the ranking member. >> thank you so much. Um, I want to first of all, say thank you to congressman frost again for this important amendment, which I strongly support. Um, we should all be deeply concerned about voucher mills, which profit off students without delivering results. Voucher programs can be abused, and democrats have historically worked to investigate.
▶ 5:22:37In 2019 and 2020, democrats sent the department of education and the program's administrator a request for information about the program and each participating school. Now, I want to pause right here because the gentlelady from north carolina specifically said, give me examples, I want information, I want data, I just want to be clear.
▶ 5:22:58The democrats have been trying to make sure that we could be responsible about taxpayer dollars and dig into this, but I specifically mentioned the department of education. Do y'all know what the republicans want to do to the department of education? They put the wrestling lady over it, number one. And then she said that her job is to shut it down. So they started gutting it from within.
▶ 5:23:23And I've not heard anything from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about how devastating that would be for our children to gut the department of education, a department that would do things such as collect data and conduct investigations around things such as this. Among those requests were the number of voucher students in each grade level and at each school, and the percentage of each school's revenue that came from the program.
▶ 5:23:48Neither the department nor the administrator provided the information, saying the enrollment data could identify students in the program, and they had no information on a school's source of revenue. Their responses strongly suggested schools participating in the program relied largely or solely on voucher students for their existence, and could not attract other students based on quality, so I urge you to vote yes.
▶ 5:24:16In addition to that, there was an attempt to debunk what I was talking about. I just want to make sure that we clarify so we all on the same page. We are talking about federal funding because we are on the federal level. This is the us house. And when we look at the federal appropriations, what they are proposing as it relates to soar is that there be approximately $24,000 per osp student, so 30 million for osp, 10 million for D.C.
▶ 5:24:46Public schools, and 20 million for D.C. public charter schools. Those are the numbers. Undeniably, that is what would be in our appropriations. And with that, I will yield. >> back. Chair. Recognize Mr. higgins from louisiana. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I yield my time to miss fox. >> uh, I thank Mr. higgins.
▶ 5:25:09You know, our colleagues want to continue the department of education, which has done an abysmal job since it came into existence. Unfortunately, as a bribe, again, to the unions, uh, to put it in existence. So yesterday, a report came out, the national assessment of educational progress. Nape offered a grim outlook tuesday for eighth and 12th grade students.
▶ 5:25:34Scores dropped to the lowest in decades for reading and math score among high school seniors, along with declines in eighth grade science. Uh, Mr. chairman, I'd like to enter this into the record, if I could. It's an article that it's in the hill, but it was in the, I think every major paper, um, we've spent trillions of dollars through the department of education since its existence. And here's what was reported yesterday.
▶ 5:26:03In math, 45% of high school seniors scored below basic, the lowest since 2005. In reading, 32% in the exam taken last year scored below basic, the lowest since the exam began in 1992.
▶ 5:26:19And our friends want to keep the union schools in existence and deny the opportunity for students, particularly in D.C. and other places that we've had.
▶ 5:26:35It's devastating what's happening in the, quote, public schools in 2023, nape found only 14% of students were reading for fun every day, with experts calling it a crisis.
▶ 5:26:52The scores we aren't getting any any return on the money that's being spent in the public schools in terms of high quality among our students. And yet here in washington, we're trying to help almost all minority students, 95% are minority. They're trapped in low performing schools.
▶ 5:27:18And through the opportunity scholarships, they have the opportunity to choose a high performing school. And our colleagues want to deny them that. It's unfathomable that they want to do that. The the best thing we could do in this country, we are in a race with china, india and other countries who want to be first in the world, and particularly china.
▶ 5:27:48They want to take us over. And what are they doing? Focusing on helping students develop skills. And we're focusing on pouring money down a rat hole in terms of what we're spending for education. We are not helping our students. This, um, this amendment needs to be defeated. All the amendments that are going to come up need to be defeated, and I yield back. And I thank my colleague from louisiana for yielding. I yield back my time to him. >> gentlelady yields back.
▶ 5:28:19>> I yield, Mr. chairman. >> uh, and before I yield to the next person, we never did, uh, accept the the hill report. Without objection. So ordered for the record, any other member seek recognition? Miss crockett. >> thank you so much. I just want to clarify, because I don't want the american people to watch this and be confused when it comes to education.
▶ 5:28:46We typically don't have this big government view on things such as k through 12. When we're talking about our public schools, we're talking about our k through 12 students. There typically is a school board that is locally elected. So whether or not they are implementing certain programs or not, that's usually based upon whatever that local school board wants to do.
▶ 5:29:16Those local school boards are contained within states. Those states have different rules about what tests they want students to take or not. So there are state law, there is local law, and then there is federal law. When we look to the department of education, the department of education is around to ensure equal access to education.
▶ 5:29:38It is supposed to promote educational excellence and provide financial and technical support to states, local districts, students and institutions. They also do things like making sure that there is federal aid that is available.
▶ 5:29:56So yes, the department of education absolutely has a role to play, but their everyday role is not to be in the classroom and make sure that tests are administered a certain way, or that there is a specific curriculum. In fact, they're supposed to conduct things such as our civil rights investigations. Another area that the republicans seemingly want to, um, gut. And when we talk about civil rights, we're talking about our uniquely able students as well.
▶ 5:30:26We are talking about making sure that the resources are available, no matter if you are born with a disability, no matter if you are born into poverty, no matter what the circumstance is, there has to be a level set. And that is what the federal government is supposed to do is to make sure that we have a level set. The only reason that we're talking about local issues is because obviously we're in D.C. and D.C.
▶ 5:30:52Needs statehood like yesterday, so that they can make their own decisions, but instead we're deciding what we're going to send into D.C. and now this is supposedly about taking care of the poor black kids in D.C. well, well, let me ask you, what else have y'all done for poor black people in this country? Give me give me another bill that y'all got. Because that is that is not what you are known for, is looking out for poor black people.
▶ 5:31:19I just I'm just saying I, you know, this is these are the facts. So in fact, nobody mentioned the numbers or wanted to play on the numbers until I brought up the fact that at a private school, they can decide who they do and don't want. And unfortunately with this administration, they may tell them you're not allowed to give out scholarships to students that are of color, because we know that they've done that on the federal level.
▶ 5:31:46They said, listen, we're going to take your funding away at certain colleges. If you're giving out money based upon the fact that someone is coming from a diverse background, we know that our hbcus right now are really concerned that they may end up struggling because they tend to cater to a certain demographic. So please don't get it twisted.
▶ 5:32:07We, the american people, know that y'all have not been fighting for what is best for black folk, whether we're talking about an education or whether we're talking about the overincarceration or overpolicing as we see the invasions of black run cities right now, I'll yield. >> any other member seek recognition, seeing none. The question is now on the amendment offered by Mr. frost, the frost amendment two.
▶ 5:32:36All those in favor signify by saying I. I all those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> the we would ask for a recorded. >> vote is ordered previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. For what purpose does Mr. frost seek recognition? >> I have an amendment at the desk. Mr. chairman. >> will the clerk please distribute and report the amendment? >> amendment number three, to the amendment? In the nature of a substitute to h.r. 5181 is offered by Mr. frost of florida. >> without objection, the amendment is considered as read.
▶ 5:33:07I reserve a point of order. The gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment. >> Mr. chairman, disturbing fact that I don't think most americans know is that voucher schools do not have to abide by all of our civil rights laws. They have a sneaky way of getting around it. They say the money is going to go toward to going to the parent, not the school, but we know who gets paid in the end. This allows government funded discrimination. My third and final amendment simply requires something.
▶ 5:33:37Many people assume that government funded schools must do. Already. It requires that schools shall not discriminate against students on the basis of actual or perceived, uh, on their sexual orientation or gender identity. This is another problem with voucher schools that I take with me from florida. Florida's voucher schools are sick with discrimination.
▶ 5:33:59A 2019 investigation showed that 156 private florida private schools with anti lgbtq plus views that educated more than 20,000 students with state funded vouchers. Of course, these schools are, of these schools, more than half allowed the schools to deny admission or expel students because they're part of the lgbtq plus community.
▶ 5:34:25Almost half called recalled being, uh, almost half of them were gay or transgender, uh, folks. And they called it a biblical sin. A separate investigation in florida found that several private schools accepting millions in taxpayer, taxpayer funded vouchers promote conversion therapy for lgbtq plus students. Conversion therapy is a medical fraud and child abuse.
▶ 5:34:49Experienced teachers and administrators at schools receiving millions of dollars in state voucher funds have been fired. As soon as the school finds out that they are in a same sex relationship. The state of florida has turned public policy into a weapon against lgbtq plus floridians and bullies gay kids. My state's voucher program is a part of that program and a part of that problem, and I don't want it happening in washington, dc.
▶ 5:35:17Almost 80% of dc's voucher schools are religious. Almost half of dc's voucher schools make no mention of lgbtq plus rights on their pages. This isn't to assume that all religious schools receiving voucher programs will discriminate against lgbtq. Plus, uh, folks here in dc, but it will ensure that none can. Dc's educators should be able to teach without fear of being fired, for whom they love and who they are.
▶ 5:35:43Dc families who choose to participate in the voucher program should do so, uh, with free of the fear of gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination. All children should be guaranteed a hate free education. Congress has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into the dc voucher program with terrible results. It's glaring. A real example of waste, fraud, and abuse.
▶ 5:36:06This anti-public education ideologically inspired program fails dc students year after year. It's no wonder that the program isn't even popular with dc residents. Since 2017, the majority of new students offered vouchers have turned them down. Less than 5% of eligible students even apply. Letters from the dc council opposing the voucher program have grown stronger and stronger.
▶ 5:36:33Five dc city council members opposing it in 2011, eight members opposing in 2017 and now in 2023. 12 members opposing it. Families and community leaders don't want it. Yes, we force it upon them, yet we force it upon them, failing and discriminate discriminating voucher schools that sap dc's, uh, improving public schools of resources gives parents fewer choices for their child's education, not more.
▶ 5:36:58I asked my colleagues to look at the results and the data on dc voucher program and support this amendment and my other amendments. We must ensure that dc voucher program continues our tax dollars and the academic potential of our dc kids are not wasted, and that people are not subjected to discrimination. I yield back, the. >> gentleman yields back. Any other member seek recognition. Chair recognize doctor fox.
▶ 5:37:29>> uh, thank you, Mr. chairman. Um, I'm not going to take up the committee's a lot of the committee's time. This is just. This amendment is not needed. It's going to result in fewer choices, less access to very high performing schools in the city. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. It's just not necessary to have, uh, what we the bill we have before us is adequate, and I yield back. >> yield back. Any other member seek recognition? Mr. crockett.
▶ 5:37:59>> I again thank my colleague, Mr. frost for offering this amendment, and I strongly support this amendment is about basic protections for kids, civil rights. We should all be able to agree to protect basic human decency and respect. School is for everyone and should be a place where every child feels safe. Everyone deserves the opportunity to grow, succeed, and thrive at school. We should all be able to agree that taxpayer dollars should not be used for discrimination, especially discrimination against kids in the classroom.
▶ 5:38:29The opportunity scholarship program should be no exception. I urge a yes vote on this amendment and I'll yield. >> any other member seek recognition. Seeing none. The question is now on the amendment offered by Mr. frost, the frost amendment number three. All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion, chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed. >> to. >> and we. >> will. >> recorded vote is ordered as previously announced.
▶ 5:38:57Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. For what purpose does Mr. simon seek recognition? >> thank you, Mr. chair. >> you have an amendment at the desk. >> I do have an amendment at the desk. And before I speak to it, Mr. chair, if you allow me. Just a couple of seconds, we heard. >> hold on. Will the clerk distribute? >> yes. >> and report the amendment. >> amendment to amendment. In the nature of a substitute to h.r. 5181 is offered by miss simon of california. >> without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order.
▶ 5:39:26Uh, miss simon is recognized for five minutes to explain her amendment. >> thank you so much, Mr. chair. I appreciate you. Um, a few minutes ago, we we learned that, uh, yet there's another victim of senseless violence in this country. And I want to extend god's grace and love, um, and thoughts to Mr. kirk's family. No one, regardless of who you are, how you vote and what you believe in, if you are on this soil. Being victimized by gun violence is is horrible.
▶ 5:39:53Um, and we have to we have to we have to shift these realities. And so, um, that's very, just very much on my heart. All the families in this country right now, in their own situations who are reeling from gun violence, uh, we have to continue to speak on the tragedies each and every day. Today, I am offering a common sense amendment to ensure that disabled students participating in private school voucher programs in D.C.
▶ 5:40:21Have the same rights and services and protections as their peers in public school. I may be one of the few people at the dais who have a child in D.C. school. Uh, I'm one of, I believe, the only single mom of a school age child, uh, in the us house of representatives. And my ninth grader actually goes to a school that is governed by the archdiocese.
▶ 5:40:46And I know for a fact that if you are a disabled child and you are going to a private school, that school may not have the resources to support your child. Should that child have a disability for a fact. Simply put, my amendment would guarantee that these students, their civil rights are not dependent on what school they attend.
▶ 5:41:11My amendment would require that schools accept who accept these vouchers, certify that their voucher students would be entitled to the rights afforded to them in the individuals with disabilities education act. The id without this amendment, school voucher students with disabilities would not be guaranteed the same rights that public school students with disabilities are under.
▶ 5:41:39In terms of the id, a right to a free, appropriate public education, including free special education and related services and individual education programs or ieps.
▶ 5:41:57Least restrictive environment requirements, or the requirement for integrated learning with non-disabled peers to the maximum extent possible, and having special education teachers that have met special education requirements. This amendment is deeper than equity.
▶ 5:42:14It's fairness and giving disabled students who take these vouchers the opportunity to have an education that they so deserve, the supports that they are so entitled to by law, it would ensure that federal dollars are not being spent at private institutions that would deny students with disabilities the right to an iep or support services, or to be in an integrated classroom.
▶ 5:42:43Further, my amendment would also ensure that schools that accept these funds uphold the rehabilitation act of 1973 and the americans with disabilities act. These laws were hard won by disability advocates to ensure that people with disabilities do not face discrimination anywhere.
▶ 5:43:08They took over government buildings, including the capitol, and crawled up the capitol steps. I don't know if you saw the footage included an eight year old girl who said, I won't stop crawling to the top until I get to the top because I need people to see me. She left her wheelchair behind. May you pass this amendment in her honor. They took over these government buildings hoping that students, students who were born with disabilities like myself, had access to education, a fair shot.
▶ 5:43:38My amendment would ensure that private schools receiving government funding cannot discriminate against students with disabilities by denying them admission or accommodations, whether these students be blind or have intellectual disabilities or have hearing disabilities, we know that students deserve a fair shot. If you take the voucher, this amendment says you should be able to provide that student with accommodations.
▶ 5:44:06It is only fair our children should not miss out on their education and their futures, because my colleagues would deny them decades old civil rights. I urge my colleagues, I urge you to vote yes on this amendment for the children in D.C. who are consistently unheard and put to the side.
▶ 5:44:26We cannot go back to the days of old when disabled children are in classrooms at the end of the hall with no sign language or no braille or no large print materials where children with intellectual disabilities are sent off to schools without any oversight. Regardless how you vote and where you live. If we can do anything for the children, whether you agree with this bill or not, they're in these voucher programs.
▶ 5:44:54Children's with disabilities deserve support, they deserve accommodations, and they deserve our care. I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. Chair recognizes doctor fox. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I certainly support, uh, helping any student who has any kind of disability get the education that is, um, necessary for that child.
▶ 5:45:20However, this amendment is duplicative, burdensome and undercut the programs by miring it in red tape and may reduce the number of children who can receive a scholarship. It's unnecessary. I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. Ma'am. I'd like to yield. I will yield to the gentleman from louisiana. >> ma'am. May I yield for may yield for a question? >> I thank chair lady.
▶ 5:45:47Um, I'm actually going to ask the gentlelady a question. Could you clarify, because you passionately speaking for people that we, you know, we we love and respect and support, I believe, um, representative fox's legislative purposes is is slightly different here, but you're you're in the same arena regarding education.
▶ 5:46:14And you brought up our disabled citizens. But do you know of schools, you seem to indicate that you know, of of schools. I'm, I'm, I'm asking you, ma'am, do you know of schools that are in right now in violation of ada? And if so, why? If they're in D.C. why have they not been reported and investigated? They're already in violation of the law if they're not in in compliance with ada.
▶ 5:46:43Does the gentlelady have some? >> yes, I do, yes. So because. >> I just put my kid in. School and. >> she has. >> dyscalculia, I know I've made a gazillion phone calls. Private and charter schools do not have to have the same kind of accommodations that. >> our public schools do. No, that's across the country. That's so what this amendment does, what. >> the amendment does, it. All I'm saying is, is I'm actually not even saying. >> the. Ada law, understand, what.
▶ 5:47:14>> it says. >> is for children who have vouchers. I just want to answer your question. >> that was yielded to me your time. >> that I'm saying these schools do not have to accommodate these children and we want them. >> to ada law, which is which is a slightly different arena. And I would suggest that all schools should be in compliance with the required, uh, ada guidelines. I yield back to gentlelady fox. >> thank you. And I yield back, Mr. chairman. >> um. >> chair acknowledges Mr. bell.
▶ 5:47:46>> thank you, Mr. chairman. I yield to miss simon. >> so I want us to take a second here. >> this is. >> meant, if we are thinking that disabled children provide more burden than not than fine. Vote no on my amendment. This should be an easy, nonpartisan vote. Whether you agree with the voucher program or not.
▶ 5:48:10We know that charter schools and private schools, children not just disability service, but school lunch base basic rights that we have one in public schools to ensure that every single child has the same right to learn. I would encourage you and your staff.
▶ 5:48:31To call any private school right now in washington, dc and ask if a blind child tomorrow could enroll. Would there have would they have access to a brailler? I would ask you tomorrow, get on the phone or stop the hearing now and call any private school in dc and say I have a deaf child.
▶ 5:48:57Will they have access immediately to someone to help them sign in class? I would ask you to call private schools throughout the city and ask them if your autistic child, who both has mobility and intellectual disabilities, can immediately integrate in a third grade class. I would ask you. I would ask you, is there someone in that school, an aide, ready and able to provide medication care for that child?
▶ 5:49:25I would ask you for the children with disabilities who are applying to schools, will they be able to get the testing and the services that they would get if they were at a public school? The answer is no. There is a whole industry. There's a whole industry in washington, dc and around the country where you have to pay $1,500 plus to get your child assessed to verify their disability. It's free in the private and the public schools.
▶ 5:49:54So unless you have a disabled child in the washington, dc school, I would suggest everyone close their mouths because I do, and I have been on the phone and I have visited schools. I am offering an amendment because it's something that I know. And to the good doctor, I know you mean well.
▶ 5:50:16This amendment is about ensuring that all of our babies, regardless of their able ism or lack thereof, have a shot. You say no. Then I know where your heart is able. Students are the are not the only ones who should be provided the opportunity to be in the class, and to learn and to be integrated.
▶ 5:50:38I know folks want to take us back to a 1950s america, but there are some of us who want our young people to have the best shot. So you tell the tens of thousands of children, not just in dc, but in wheelchairs, those who are in our deaf and our blind schools who want to integrate into public schools using your voucher program. You ask them and their parents, do they have a fair shot?
▶ 5:51:03All the amendment does is lift up these children and guarantee that these schools provide the accommodations that they deserve. If you want to call it red tape, you tell that to a parent of a blind child, you want to call it red tape. You tell that to a parent of an eager child who uses a wheelchair that wants to attend the kipp down the street, but yet doesn't have a Rep. you call it ada.
▶ 5:51:28I'm saying, listen, this is an opportunity in your voucher program to ensure disabled children have the right to grow and learn and prosper in an integrated environment. Touché. You, I say yes. >> any other member seek recognition. >> Mr. chairman. >> chair. Recognize Mr. sessions. >> Mr. chairman, I do understand. >> the emotion that's associated with this that the gentlewoman has expressed.
▶ 5:51:55I have 31 year old down syndrome son, and we were lucky in dallas, texas, that the elementary school that he went to placed high value and alex. I was aware for a long, long time of the school's ability to help alex, the teacher, the principal, the students.
▶ 5:52:23It was an environment that was a public education. And quite honestly, just as the gentlewoman is suggesting, you have to fight for what you're going to get when you have a disabled child, you have a different a difference. But it was an obligation on public education. It is not an obligation on private schools. >> right. >> and it should not be.
▶ 5:52:52And I'm going to stand up and support virginia foxx. She is more learned in this issue, but I have 27 years of dealing with this and 31 years with a young man who is an angel, by all accounts. But he I felt like he deserved a lot of things.
▶ 5:53:12But when alex got to seventh grade, the seventh grade school could not accommodate alex, even though it was part of the public system and it was beyond the public schools ability. And I didn't argue with them. I didn't like it.
▶ 5:53:30Alex was personally attacked and bullied, and he cried to me, and I took him out the next day as one of the hardest days as a dad you'll ever have, and I had to move alex to a private school that cost a lot of money. And that was the option for me. That's what I wish that we would get on board with. If we want to talk about fairness.
▶ 5:54:03Alex had two parents who worked who could afford the extra $18,000 a long time ago to send him to a school that couldn't guarantee his safety. But I guarantee you the public school could not, sir.
▶ 5:54:19And I think if you're going to do something really, that would be a benefit, you would allow that student who is certifiably disabled as alex was. You could see it, you could test it, you could put any test you want. He'll he is, uh, he needed help.
▶ 5:54:42That's where I think this effort has been, at least in texas, to where hopefully a parent who has a disabled child could live in an area where they could gather together.
▶ 5:55:00Eight, ten, 12 students who had same needs or similar needs and move to giving that child a school, a teacher, a home school, an opportunity where they could use public money. To come in and help that family, help that student.
▶ 5:55:25It may be you can only find 2 or 3 teachers that find accommodation with autism or down syndrome or any other, including retinal sight issues. And there are experts in these areas. A typically a private school is not set up that way. It was not designed that way. It was designed. Mr.
▶ 5:55:53Chairman, I ask for an additional two minutes. >> yes. >> private schools are not set up for that. Private schools are not. Elementary schools are. But they have trouble. They're staggered in meeting the needs.
▶ 5:56:14And I would like to see some bit of conversation if we're going to talk about students that are disabled, just like my alex, just like your child, just like thousands of other children providing or the states that provide these taking that public money. Parents like my wife and I who gathered together and saw the greater good of a group of us who could satisfy this.
▶ 5:56:42Those schools are very expensive, but it would sure be helpful if I had 20 years ago, if I had, knowing I was going to pay my taxes, I was still paying 18,000 $15,000 for school taxes. Didn't have a child in school. He couldn't handle it. If I could take that money and move it with the child.
▶ 5:57:06And this is what we've attempted to these dadgum republicans are attempting to take and have the money that you would either the average or that the parent paid in and move it to an accommodation to a school, that they could help that child. I really do. >> question just.
▶ 5:57:33>> I really do offer a lot of heartfelt sympathy for where you are. >> oh, I don't want sympathy. >> and if. >> you do need it. >> you don't think. >> I don't think sympathy. I think. >> that I. Think disabled children yield back my time. >> I yield back. >> my time. >> I just have a question. >> I bring back my time. But my point is, there are better answers than going to a school not even designed for this. A school, a private school is not designed for that. And so that's my point.
▶ 5:58:03So you can come see me at my office. I would love to. I'm available to you. I've been engaged in the down syndrome caucus for 27 years. I've been working with people. I'm for it. But my point is, I think you're asking something of an institution. We should be asking why doesn't the public school give that? And the answer is they don't. And that's why they don't.
▶ 5:58:30And that is why we need something like we're beginning to have in texas, where the parents can gather together. Mr. chairman, I apologize for taking time. This is a very difficult issue for her. It's a very difficult issue for me, and I'm very passionate about it. But I felt like I had to stand up and say, hold on here. There's a better answer, Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. And I gave him my time, the overtime.
▶ 5:58:59So I won't speak on it, but I'll recognize the ranking. >> member really briefly. Um, I just have to say that this committee usually devolves into something terrible. Um, and for some reason, we can't get to a space of bipartisanship. It seems like almost on anything.
▶ 5:59:17But I think that what we just saw from representative simon, as well as representative sessions, is that something like having a uniquely abled child is not partizan, that is not partizan. And the struggles that will come along with that are not partizan. And I think that that is why it is important to support this amendment, because this is an amendment is not about the democrats, it's not about the republicans.
▶ 5:59:45It's about parents that are in need of making sure that they've got access to resources. And one of the things that Mr. sessions said that really does make good sense is that when we're talking about private schools and public schools, yes, public schools have a higher, um, requirement that is set upon them than private schools. And Mr.
▶ 6:00:11Sessions is sounded like he agreed with that standard is that there should be this higher standard. And the reason that we have a higher standard as it relates to dealing with our uniquely abled babies is because of them having tax dollars, whether it is federal tax dollars, county tax dollars, city tax dollars versus a private school. A private school is not taking our public tax dollars.
▶ 6:00:40So there is a different level of oversight. And the reason that this amendment matters is because we're talking about taking public tax dollars and putting them into the private system. So anytime we are looking at taking public dollars and putting them into private, then private should have to adhere to the same requisites as public. If private says, hey, we are not going to take public dollars, then that's one thing.
▶ 6:01:10The final thing that I'll say on this before I yield the rest of my time, in case miss simon had anything else that she wanted to say, is that we continue to pretend that private or throwing money on something is always better. And it's not. That's not necessarily the case.
▶ 6:01:30And so I would hope that we could look at real issues like this and decide that we are going to focus in and just do what's right by those uniquely able students that are coming up. And I think that that's all this amendment seeks to do, if I'm correct. >> yes, ma'am. >> okay. Anything else? >> yes, ma'am. >> I'll yield my time to miss simon. >> I appreciate. >> you. >> uh, Mr. chair, Mr.
▶ 6:01:58Sessions and, uh, ranking member. The crux of the amendment comes from families that I've worked with since I've been here. Just eight short months in the dc system.
▶ 6:02:12And what I want to be clear, if you read the amendment, all it says is that if you have a voucher as a family and you are seeking to go to an accredited school, that you will not be barred from attending that school.
▶ 6:02:28And we know that disabilities range, they are not homogeneous, that schools who are educating young people, who are getting tax dollars to do so, should work extremely hard to ensure that we are not segregating students based on disability.
▶ 6:02:46Some might say that it's efficient and sufficient to segregate children with disabilities in schools that do not interact with able bodied students, the disability community would say hell no, that our students must be a part of our communities and no private schools.
▶ 6:03:07To your point, do not oftentimes have the supports for disabled students because they are, in definition, private. I'll say it again. And if we are giving tens of thousands of dollars for young people to have school choice, they should, upon choosing a school, have the basic accommodations to be a part of that community.
▶ 6:03:33I can't think of anything more bipartisan, but to say we want all of our children to be in community, not relegated to schools far away with no oversight, relegated only to disabled students. Who have we become that we would even be having the conversation here. I have been a disability advocate for much of my adult life.
▶ 6:04:02Again, growing up with one, I would ask that we think about our vote here and think about the families that very few of you have met with who are wanting their children to have the education that you promote, and yet can't get some of the basic services in those institutions. Your tax dollars are tax dollars.
▶ 6:04:21Their tax dollars should be paying to ensure that their children are learning, are spaced in a space that honors their difference, and they're getting what they need to be able to move through our school system here. And with that, I'll yield. And thank you so much for the time. >> Mr. chairman. I'd ask unanimous consent for one minute. >> without objection.
▶ 6:04:46So I haven't spoken, and I've yielded you two minutes earlier, so I have about three minutes left. Yes, sir. >> I'm trying to limit our time and make our our our time valuable. >> uh. >> I would say to the gentlewoman, I do get your point, but private schools, as we know them, are there to handle the other 95% of students and to give them an opportunity to excel into an environment.
▶ 6:05:15And that's what private schools are set up for. They are not set up for what I would say would be students that need special help. My son needed special guidance and special help. And I didn't say every student does, but private schools are there because the vast number of parents are cannot get their their students into a growth mode to.
▶ 6:05:43And that's why the competition is helping public schools and private schools. So the second thing, just because they get public money doesn't mean they have to operate that way. So I politely would tell the gentlewoman, I appreciate your passion. I am going to vote no. >> any other member seek recognition, seeing none.
▶ 6:06:07The question is on the amendment offered by miss simon, the simon amendment, number one. All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not. >> agreed to. A recorded. >> recorded vote is ordered as previously announced for the proceedings on the question will be postponed. For what purpose does? >> so we go to the bill.
▶ 6:06:35Are we not going to do the bill? Okay. Okay. >> our next we, uh, we're going to have votes in about five minutes. But I think we can get through this next bill. And if we can't, we'll we'll postpone. We'll go into recess. But our next item for consideration is h.r. 5107, the clean air act. The clerk will please designate the bill. >> h.r.
▶ 6:07:035107, the clean air act, a bill to repeal the comprehensive policing and justice reform amendment act of 2022 enacted by the district of columbia council. >> without objection, the bill shall be considered as read and open for amendment at any point without objection so ordered. The chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk will designate the amendment. >> an amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 5107 is offered by Mr. >> without objection, the amendment is considered as read substitute to be considered as original text for the purposes of the amendment.
▶ 6:07:30I recognize myself for five minutes for statement on the bill and the amendment. I support the clean air act, which repeals the majority of dc's comprehensive policing and justice reform act of 2022 by repealing the misguided 2022 act, congress would restore the integrity and faith of the law enforcement of the district of columbia. For instance, the 2022 act stripped law enforcement officers of many tools needed to execute their duties safely and without fear of retribution, as well as limited their options in situations of life or death.
▶ 6:07:59The act also created new opportunities for anti-police activists to harass law enforcement officers, and added many undue burdens and requirements to officers in the dc metropolitan police department. In 2023, both the house and senate sought to nullify dc's comprehensive policing and justice reform act of 2022 by passing a joint resolution of disapproval. Unfortunately, this resolution was vetoed by then president biden.
▶ 6:08:23This legislation would repeal the 2022 act, with the exception for subtitle a, which is being addressed separately by Mr. higgins bill and subtitle s, which the dc police does not support. Repealing clean dc act will therefore help restore the capabilities of dc law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line every day for our community to do their jobs as they are trained to do. I urge my colleagues to support this important police reform legislation. I recognize the ranking member or I recognize Mr. crockett for her statement.
▶ 6:08:55>> thank you, Mr. chair. Um, but I oppose h.r. 5107. This bill overturns laws passed democratically by the district of columbia. It is not the place of congress which is not accountable to dc residents to micromanage the district and act as some kind of super legislature, second guessing their laws. I have said this over and over. If you want to change dc's laws, run for office here. Like many cities around the country, dc passed police reform packages in 2020.
▶ 6:09:26If y'all don't know, in 2020, that's when george floyd got killed. The dc police reform legislation aimed at accountability for police officers who use excessive force. Kind of like what we see happening with ice or abuse their power. Again, what we see, what's happening with ice, it is increased transparency. It provided stronger civilian oversight and empowers the chief of police to fire or punish officer misconduct and criminal activity. Why would we ever want to stand with criminals? Never mind, I forgot who got elected. Never mind.
▶ 6:09:57The dc legislation banned the use of chokeholds and other neck restraints. It said. Reasonable standards for the use of deadly force. It prohibited D.C. from hiring police officers with prior misconduct charges. It established education and training requirements to address racism bias, policing and white supremacy in the wake of the killing of george floyd. Similar policies were passed in communities all over the country. As communities work to restore trust between police and residents and to address past injustices.
▶ 6:10:27That was the democratic process. This bill is trying to undo all of that. The first draft of this bill even tried to repeal a ban on dangerous chokeholds and neck restraints by police officers. 39 states have passed reforms related to officer education and training requirements. Since may of 2020, 26 states have enacted laws to improve data collection and increase transparency in policing.
▶ 6:10:54At least seven states, including arizona, colorado and wisconsin, have enacted legislation requiring the creation of public databases on use of force information. States like colorado, south carolina, and maryland have mandated adoption of body worn cameras. Statewide, at least 20 states since 2020 have enacted laws that address state level use of force standards. Because dc is not a state. Again, dc statehood. Let's go.
▶ 6:11:23Republicans are trying to play politics and to roll back the clock. I urge my colleagues to remember our country's history and stand with the people of dc, stand up for self-determination, and stand up for democracy. I urge my colleagues to vote no. I also just want to be clear.
▶ 6:11:40I had to google this because, you know, this isn't my platform, but it says the republican platform on small government is a long held conservative principle advocating for limited federal power, reduced spending, and fewer regulations. Now, y'all don't like regulations because we all saw what happened when the secretary of hhs came in. He don't want vaccinations. He don't want nothing. He just want us all to sit here and die.
▶ 6:12:09But nevertheless, we know that this is the opposite of small government. Y'all have decided that duly elected people know we want a big government our way into dc. We want a big government our way into women's uteri. We want to just big government everything. We want a big government. Our way into chicago. I, I don't know what platform y'all are dealing with right now because it's definitely not small government. It's definitely not limited federal power.
▶ 6:12:36This is actually a federal overpowering, uh, as as I feel like we are experiencing and reduce spending, if I have to remind y'all that big ugly bill, it increased our debt some more, I the only thing that I can say, y'all are really standing for this in your platform is fewer regulations. I think y'all either need to change the platform or need to change your party name, because none of this seems to be in alignment with what y'all claim to be.
▶ 6:13:03So if y'all want to be good republicans according to your platform, not not the democrats platform, and you want to limit federal power, it seems like we should all vote against this bill because it does just the opposite, and it increases federal power by deciding to supplant what we want here. As D.C.
▶ 6:13:31Lawmakers elected from a lot of places that aren't half as diverse as dc, and telling dc what they're going to do with their citizens here in this city. I'll yield. >> chair glasses. Uh, miss norton. >> um. >> I strongly oppose this undemocratic and paternalistic bill, which repeals dc law.
▶ 6:13:59The over 700,000 dc residents, majority of whom are black and brown, are capable and worthy of governing themselves. Dc's local legislature, the council, uh, worked on comprehensive policing and justice reform. Uh amendment act, which is 45 pages for two years.
▶ 6:14:28This bill repeals almost the entire law in 19 lines. The substance of the comprehensive policing and and justice reform amendment act is irrelevant, since there is never justification for congress to legislate on local dc matters.
▶ 6:14:53However, I will briefly discuss it, among other things, the comprehensive policing and justice reform amendment act makes it easier to fire police officers for serious misconduct and crimes, prohibits the hiring of officers with prior misconduct, and strengthen civilian oversight of the police department.
▶ 6:15:21The dictionary defines democracy as, quote, a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and and and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation, usually involving periodically held free elections.
▶ 6:15:45Close quote dc's lack of voting representation in either the house or the senate, and congress's plenary authority over dc are the antithesis of democracy. The council has 13 members. The members are elected by dc residents.
▶ 6:16:08If dc residents do not like how the members vote, they can vote them out of office. Congress has 535 members. The members are elected by the residents of states. None are elected by dc residents. If dc residents do not like how members vote, they cannot vote them out of office.
▶ 6:16:36The only solution to the undemocratic treatment of uh, of dc is to grant D.C. statehood. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from leading constitutional scholars, including larry tribe, explaining why the D.C. statehood bill is constitutional. >> without objection, so ordered.
▶ 6:17:07>> thank you. The bill, uh, h.r. 51, the washington, D.C. admission act, would grant D.C. residents who pay the same federal taxes as residents of the states full control over their local affairs and voting representation in congress.
▶ 6:17:29This bill would reduce the size of the federal district from 68mi to square two square miles, which would consist of the white house, the capitol, the supreme court, the national mall, and remain under the control of congress. The rest of D.C. would be a new state, the state of washington, D.C. I urge a no vote on the clean D.C. vote act.
▶ 6:17:58I can I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters opposing this bill from D.C. mayor muriel bowser? The entire D.C. council and D.C. attorney general brian schwab. >> without objection. So ordered. And gentlelady yields back. I ask unanimous consent to enter a letter of support from the washington, D.C. police union into the record.
▶ 6:18:28Without objection. So ordered. Does any member, any other member seek recognition? All right. Uh, the question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying I, I all those opposed signify by saying no. >> no. >> in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. The question is now in favorably reported h.r. 5000 107, as amended.
▶ 6:18:54All those in favor signify by saying I, I all those opposed signify by saying no. >> no. >> in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The bill is. >> a recorded vote. >> the recorded vote is ordered as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed now because they have called votes or about to call votes. >> I don't think they've called them. You want to see if we can. >> have we call votes. >> they've not called them. >> we have not. So we can keep going. >> you want to keep going? >> all right.
▶ 6:19:24We'll we'll try to get through one more. Then our next item for consideration is h.r. 5001 43, the district of columbia policing protection act. The clerk will please designate the bill. >> h.r. 5143, the district of columbia policing protection act, a bill to establish standards for law enforcement officers in the district of columbia to engage in vehicular pursuits of suspects and for other purposes. >> without objection, the bill should be considered as read and open for amendment at any point without objection, so ordered, the chair recognizes, to offer an amendment the substitute, the clerk, please designate the amendment.
▶ 6:19:54>> amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 5143, as offered by Mr. comer of kentucky. >> without objection, the amendment is considered as read, and the substitute will be considered as original text. For the purposes of further amendment, I now recognize the sponsor of the bill, Mr. higgins from louisiana, for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. In january of 2023, and contrary to our recommendations, the D.C. council enacted a comprehensive police and injustice reform amendments act of 2022, D.C.
▶ 6:20:20Law 24 through 345, among numerous other police raided policy matters. One of the subtitles of cp imposed a host of restrictions on police pursuit of criminal suspects, and at the time, you know, we it was one of the things that we warned against, Mr. chairman, in this committee did regarding.
▶ 6:20:50The the disconnect between the civilians on the council and the and the officers on the street and actually engaged in law enforcement, which does indeed include a large part of law enforcement is prevention. It's like most of it.
▶ 6:21:14So pursuit of of a of a vehicle that always deserves to be in the realm of discretion of the of the officer according to his acting, according to the totality of circumstance of that particular situation.
▶ 6:21:33And of course, according to the laws of his, uh, of his city and the policy of his departments and his own training and certification, his rank on shift.
▶ 6:21:48So there are many factors that an officer has to, has to navigate through in a split second to determine if pursuit is reasonable and righteous and called for and and to the benefit of the of the citizens and community that that officer is in service to.
▶ 6:22:15So for a council to just sort of arbitrarily say, no, you can't do that, that was never a good idea. So essentially, my my amendment restores the power of discretion to police officers in D.C. to pursue a vehicle if it's the right thing to do. And it and quite simply, that's a discretion that never should have been taken away. It was it was a mistake.
▶ 6:22:44We're correcting it. There's there are guidelines that an officer uses, Mr. chairman, regardless of of his department. Is it an acceptable risk to make that pursuit? Is there another way to get the guy? If you know who it is and he's a, you know, maybe a a regular visitor to your jail, you know, where he's going. He's I know he's going.
▶ 6:23:11He's going to his mama's house or I know he's going, he's he's, he's he's going to his buddy's trailer. Then you can pick him up later there. And that officer needs to be able to make that decision to not pursue. That's right. Whereas if if he makes a determination that this guy is a danger to my community and he must be stopped, then you've got to be able to pursue.
▶ 6:23:39So bottom line is that this amendment restores that discretion and authority to the the front line officers that are called upon to enforce the law and to prevent criminal actions from happening. So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support my amendment. I don't expect I'll get that, but I would love to see support from both sides of the aisle. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 6:24:10Chairman. I yield. >> gentleman yields back. They've called votes, but I'm going to yield to the ranking member, Mr. crockett, for her opening statement. And then we'll recess until ten minutes after the vote. But I recognize Mr. crockett. >> Mr. chairman, I oppose this bill, which would override the will of the D.C. citizens. Um, as it relates to high speed police vehicle chases. Let's be clear.
▶ 6:24:32High speed chases are dangerous and far too often cause needless deaths, injuries, and property damage to innocent bystanders and are often initiated over minor traffic violations when deciding when vehicular pursuit is warranted, you need to balance public safety. The reasons behind the pursuit, pedestrian safety, and the location of the pursuit. The metropolitan police department and the police officers union already has a policy about when vehicular pursuit is warranted. Under current D.C.
▶ 6:25:01Law, the city allows pursuits where the fleeing suspect has committed a crime of violence or poses an imminent threat to public safety where pursuit is necessary and when it can be conducted in a way that mitigates the risk of injury to innocent people. I believe D.C. is better equipped than congress is to make decisions about when its police should decide to initiate a car chase. This bill is unnecessary other than to meddle in local policing policy.
▶ 6:25:31High speed police pursuits of an individual are deadly actions. At least 3336 people died in police car chases in the us between 2017 and 2022. At least half of those were innocent bystanders. In short, as somebody who's had to deal with this, dealing with criminal defense work, we absolutely need to make sure that there are parameters and standards that are put in place.
▶ 6:25:56And I think that it is only reasonable because the people elected the city council, because police are hired and they are not necessarily hired to do what the what the people have asked for. They have asked their elected officials to make sure that they don't have these high speed chases coming through, just because maybe they don't like somebody's accent or because somebody is a little too dark. Next thing you know, we got a high speed chase.
▶ 6:26:24They have laid out some parameters that are very basic and will keep everyone safe, not only those being pursued, but those that are innocent bystanders as well as the law enforcement agents. >> uh. >> did a lady yield back pursuant to the previous order? The chair declares the committee in recess, subject to the call of the chair. We plan to reconvene ten minutes after the last vote. The committee stands in recess.
▶ 8:32:30Recess for votes. We were debating the higginsville and it was turned for the minority to speak. So the chair recognizes miss norton from washington, D.C. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Um, I strongly oppose this undemocratic and paternalistic bill which amends D.C. law. The over 700,000 D.C.
▶ 8:32:56Residents, the majority of whom are black and brown, are capable and worthy of governing themselves. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters opposing this bill from D.C. mayor muriel bowser. The entire D.C. council, and the D.C. attorney general. Brian. >> without objection, so ordered. >> the D.C. council has 13 members.
▶ 8:33:23If residents do not like how the members vote, residents can vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure that is called democracy. Congress has 535 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.
▶ 8:33:53That is the antithesis of democracy. It is long past time to grant D.C. statehood. The substance of the bill is irrelevant, since there is never justification for congress to legislate on local D.C. matters. However, I will briefly discuss it.
▶ 8:34:16Vehicular pursuits are inherently dangerous, not just for officers or suspects, but bystanders, too. And there are often other options to detain a suspect.
▶ 8:34:36According to the internal association of chiefs of police, a police department's vehicle pursuit policies must, quote, balance the risks. Take all of the factors into consideration and reach a decision that is best suited to their jurisdictions.
▶ 8:34:56Close quote 2% of local police departments have decided to prohibit vehicular pursuits all together. D.C. does not prohibit vehicular pursuits. Instead, it limits when officers can engage in vehicular pursuits. The sponsor of this bill, who is from louisiana, thinks he knows better than D.C.
▶ 8:35:25How to strike the balance in D.C. between the need to capture suspects and the risks of vehicular pursuits. I note two things about this bill. First, the sponsor titles this bill, the district of columbia policing protection act, not the district of columbia police officer protection act.
▶ 8:35:51Second, this bill requires the department of justice to publish a study not later than three years after enactment on technology capable of altering members of the public. I'm sorry of alerting members of the public, uh, to the presence of police pursuit in their immediate vicinity.
▶ 8:36:20Perhaps the sponsor should have introduced a bill to to study the effectiveness of that technology before amending dc's vehicular pursuit law. I urge no vote on this bill. I yield back. >> without. Okay. Uh, any other member before I recognize anyone else.
▶ 8:36:46I ask unanimous consent to enter a letter of support for the higgins bill from the national fraternal order of police on six bills into the record. Without objection. So ordered. Any other member seek recognition? Seeing none, the question is now on the amendment. In the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed? No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
▶ 8:37:14The amendment is agreed to. The question is now in favorably reporting h.r. 5043, as amended. All those in favor signify by saying I, I all those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the bill is ordered favorably reported, as amended. >> recorded vote please, sir. >> uh, recorded vote is ordered. As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Our next item for consideration is h.r.
▶ 8:37:425179, the district of columbia attorney general appointment reform act. The clerk will please designate the bill. >> h.r. 5079, the district of columbia attorney general. Appointment reform act, a bill to amend the district of columbia home rule act to provide for the appointment of the attorney general of the district of columbia by the mayor of the district of columbia and for other purposes. >> without objection, the bill should be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Without objection to order, the chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment. The nature of substitute.
▶ 8:38:10The clerk will designate the amendment. >> an amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 5179 is offered by Mr. comer of kentucky. >> without objection, amendment is considered as read and substitute will be considered as original text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize the sponsor of the bill, Mr. fallon from texas, for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. And for your indulgence, um, I'm proud to sponsor the district of columbia attorney general's appointment and reform act. It's a common sense measure to strengthen accountability and ensure proper oversight of our nation's capital.
▶ 8:38:38And it's our nation's capital. For the past few years, a conscious choice has been made to allow crime to run amok in our nation's capital. In fact, nearly two thirds of arrests have gone on prosecuted. That's alarming. This disconnect undermines congress's ability to preserve public safety in washington, D.C. which is a federal district. Plain and simple, is not a state. My bill would amend the D.C.
▶ 8:39:03Home rule act so that the attorney general of the district of columbia would be appointed by the president of the united states. The attorney general would serve at the pleasure of the president with a term aligned with the president's. Importantly, this appointment process does not require senate confirmation, thereby streamlining the selection while ensuring clear federal accountability.
▶ 8:39:21By passing this bill, we restore the proper constitutional balance and ensure the laws of our nation's capital are enforced by the attorney general, who has the best interests of the district's law abiding citizens and visitors. This reform enhances accountability, reduces conflict, and strengthens the federal government's ability to govern effectively in the district of columbia. And above all, it will improve public safety. And we need that.
▶ 8:39:48And when you consider some other capital cities and cities around the world, the murder rate in bogota, colombia, is 15 per 100,000, which is really high. And you compare that to paris or london. It's 1 in 100,000. But mexico city, it's 10 in 100,000, and in islamabad, pakistan it's nine. And in washington, D.C. america's capital, it's 27.
▶ 8:40:11And, you know, this district not only belongs to the residents of the district belongs to all americans. And this is a straightforward, common sense solution that ensures proper governance in our capital city. And I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. chairman, thank you. And I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes the ranking member. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Mr.
▶ 8:40:39Chairman, I want to strongly oppose this bill, which is an unprecedented attack on dc's voters rights to self-governance and self-determination. Now, of all of the bills in front of us today, this might be the most extreme and certainly one of the most dangerous as an affront to D.C. its ability to self-govern and the ability of the 700,000 residents of D.C. to have their own ability to elect their own attorney general.
▶ 8:41:07This would hand that power of being able to select an attorney general to the president of the united states, without even requiring the consent of the senate. This is a major presidential overreach. It's anti-democratic, it's dangerous, and it's designed as legislation in front of us today with a hand-picked dc attorney general.
▶ 8:41:33The president would now be in charge of what crimes the office prosecutes in the district of columbia. No other state or us territory's attorney general operates in this way. An overwhelming majority of states elect their attorneys general because a jurisdiction's voters choose who best represents their interests in a court of law.
▶ 8:41:57Even in the seven states where the attorney general is appointed, they are still chosen by that state's governor or legislature officials that answer directly to their constituents and not to federal politicians, and certainly not the president. This bill would treat D.C. residents and local officials as second class citizens of the united states.
▶ 8:42:21This bill would immediately terminate the duly elected attorney general, who was chosen by dc's voters just three years ago. The ag would be replaced with the president's favorite and perhaps biggest supporters. Politicizing this role. This bill also allows senate confirmation from this appointment, removing even congress's check on the executive branch.
▶ 8:42:46By designing the bill in this way, congress has oversight role of the executive branch, and their decision making would be eliminated for this position. Donald trump's first acting U.S. attorney for D.C. of course, we know, was ed martin, who spent his time trying to intimidate opposition to the president with legal threats. Ed martin, as we know, was too extreme and unqualified even for senate republicans and, of course, was removed from office.
▶ 8:43:18Now, it would limit the ability of dc to fight back against illegal actions by donald trump in our courts. Now, with backing from congressional republicans, president trump has tried to exert control over dc's local police department and immigration policy. Now they're trying to take control of dc's chief legal officer. This would set a dangerous precedent for america, our country. It's incredibly concerning and should be not just to the people of dc, but to the people across this country.
▶ 8:43:48I urge us to vote no on this legislation, and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back, I recognize myself. I support the D.C. attorney general appointment reform act. The D.C. attorney general is charged with prosecuting juvenile crime in the district of columbia, which continues to rise. The D.C. attorney general must take into account the city's unique place as our nation's capital and operate free from local politics. This legislation provides for the presidential appointment of the D.C. attorney general. A presidentially appointed D.C.
▶ 8:44:18Attorney general will ensure appropriate executive accountability over crime in the district. I thank representative pat fallon from texas for his leadership on this legislation, and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Does any other member seek recognition, Mr. ben? >> thank you, Mr. chair. I too, rise in strong opposition to this essentially lawless bill that is unprecedented and a serious attack on the self-determination rights of washington, D.C.
▶ 8:44:43At its core, this legislation gives president trump sweeping powers, uh, here locally. And as noted by the ranking member, it would immediately terminate the term of the current district of columbia attorney general brian schwalbe. And this bill is wrong for several reasons. First, it's plainly undemocratic. It denies D.C. residents the authority to choose their own a.g.
▶ 8:45:05Uh, as was noted earlier, 42 states directly elect their attorney general, while seven other states allow their governor, governor, state supreme court, or the state legislature to appoint the a.g. But here you would have the president of the united states, without even senate confirmation, to be able to select their a.g. Uh, this denies D.C. residents representation. Second, this hands donald trump complete and total control not only of dc's criminal system, but also its civil system.
▶ 8:45:35That is a massive shift. We're talking about, uh, because the attorney general here in washington, D.C. oversees not just criminal cases, but all civil litigation, deciding with whom to sue, whom to settle with, and whom to defend against. It also prosecutes juveniles for local crimes. Uh, as things stand, the us attorney who president trump appointed prosecutes adults for dc crimes. The president also appoints local dc judges and the D.C. if you add the dc a.g.
▶ 8:46:03To that list, president trump would effectively control all of dc's litigation, prosecution, and courts. That is an overwhelming and alarming concentration of power that we're seeing. And donald trump, of course, in the last nine months, has shown nothing to us to persuade me, probably anyone reasonable in this room, that he has the best interests of dc residents at heart.
▶ 8:46:24On top of that, at this point, it's fair to say that there is a stark politicization of our federal agencies and is deeply concerning to imagine that the attorney general here in dc would be appointed by dc, as was pointed out earlier by the ranking member, uh, trump, earlier appointed as the acting us attorney for dc, ed martin, uh, who was so extreme, who so politicized his office that the senate republicans would not confirm him.
▶ 8:46:48And this is important because this person would have the right to decide who to prosecute for civil or criminal actions, and trump would be in the perfect position to continue politicizing justice here in washington, dc. Uh, imagine, for example, uh, if one of president trump's allies or someone here in congress committed a crime.
▶ 8:47:09And I think that actually happened not too long ago with one of our republican colleagues, president trump could direct his attorney general to not prosecute, could, in fact, direct his attorney general to prosecute his perceived political enemies or critics. Uh, and if you think this is imagination, just watch what's happening right now with bill pulte, with the fhfa, who is illegally, I believe, going through the mortgage records of political opponents of the president and creating baseless mortgage fraud allegations.
▶ 8:47:35Uh, imagine an attorney general here in dc with essentially unlimited powers to decide who to prosecute, who to go after civilly, uh, based on the political directions of the president. Third, and importantly, this bill presents a massive conflict of interest that president trump would certainly exploit if he controls the appointment of the D.C. a.g. He also controls which consumer protection cases get pursued or ignored. And so take a recent example.
▶ 8:48:01Dc ag sued a crypto atm operator for taking advantage of the elderly through illegal hidden fees. Given president trump's ties to the crypto world, this raises serious doubts about whether he would support similar enforcement mechanisms. In summary, I would say that this bill is textbook federal overreach. It is lawless at its core. It is undemocratic.
▶ 8:48:22At its core, it is un-american at its core, uh, and it depends entirely on the largesse and generosity and good morality of the president of the united states. And I want you to imagine if this is a democratic president to my republican colleagues, uh, who has limitless power to appoint our dc attorney general, uh, limitless power to decide who that person might decide to prosecute or not. Uh, this is a lawless, un-american bill. I urge my republican colleagues to vote no on this, and I yield back the remainder of my time.
▶ 8:48:53>> does any other member seek recognition, miss norton from washington, dc? Yes. >> Mr. >> yes, miss. Norton. >> Mr. speaker, I strongly oppose this undemocratic and paternalistic bill. The over 700,000 D.C. residents, the majority of whom are black and brown, are capable and worthy of governing themselves. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters opposing this bill from D.C.
▶ 8:49:22Mayor muriel bowser, the entire D.C. council and D.C. attorney general ron schwab. >> without objection, so ordered. >> this bill is the biggest reduction in dc's authority since the home rule act was passed in 1973. Republicans do not like that. D.C. residents elect democrats, so they denied them statehood.
▶ 8:49:51Republicans do not like whom D.C. residents elect for attorney general. So this bill removes the current attorney general and makes the attorney general a presidential appointee, further limiting D.C.
▶ 8:50:08Residents already limited ability to elect representatives is not enough for republicans, though this bill could have been made slightly less terrible by at least allowing D.C. to appoint its attorney general. Uh, as was the case before 2015. Instead, this bill makes the D.C.
▶ 8:50:37Attorney general a presidential appointee who serves at the pleasure of the president. Senate confirmation is not required. I want to make the implications of this bill clear. This bill effectively makes president trump's chief legal officer giving him full control of dc's litigation, and D.C.
▶ 8:51:05Effectively loses the ability to sue the federal government. This is not that is not at all, though. This bill effectively makes president trump's D.C. chief law enforcement officer giving him control of all prosecutions for violations of of D.C. law. And, of course, the president already appoints the local D.C.
▶ 8:51:35Judges. This bill is why D.C. needs statehood. Congress has the authority to grant D.C. residents full local government and voting representation in congress. It simply needs to pass h.r. 51, the D.C. statehood bill, which would make the residential and commercial areas of D.C. a state that the admissions clause of the constitution gives congress the authority to admit new states.
▶ 8:52:05All 37 new states were admitted by an act of congress. The district of columbia, the district clause of the constitution gives congress the authority to reduce the size of the federal district, which it has previously done.
▶ 8:52:22The new state would have a larger population than two other states, pay more federal taxes per capita than any other state, and pay no more and pay more total taxes than 21 other states. I urge my colleagues to oppose the D.C. attorney general appointment reform act, and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Does any other member seek recognition?
▶ 8:52:52Seeing none, the question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying I, I, all those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. The question is now in favorably reporting h.r. 5179, as amended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed signify by saying no. >> no. >> the chair the ayes have it. The bill is ordered favorably reported, as amended. >> Mr. chair, can I get a recorded vote? >> recorded vote is ordered.
▶ 8:53:21As previously announced, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Our next item for consideration is h.r. 5001 25, the district of columbia judicial nominations reform act. The clerk will please designate the bill. >> h.r. 5125, the district of columbia judicial nominations reform act, a bill to amend the district of columbia home rule act to terminate the district of columbia judicial nomination commission, and for other purposes. >> without objection, the bill shall be considered as read and open for amendment.
▶ 8:53:46Without objection, so ordered, the chair recognizes himself to offer amendment in the nature of substitute the clerk please designate the amendment. >> amendment. In the nature of a substitute to h.r. 5125 is offered by Mr. comer of kentucky. >> without objection. The member is considered. Read substitute will be considered as original text for the purposes of further amendment. I now recognize the sponsor of the bill, Mr. sessions from texas. >> Mr. chairman, thank you very much, Mr. chairman. I'll be brief. Uh, I know the committee has worked hard today. Mr.
▶ 8:54:14Chairman, I speak in support of h.r. 5125, the district of columbia judicial nominations reform act. It's important, as I speak today, to let each of us know that we are not in this act, removing any sitting judge or anyone that currently serves on that court.
▶ 8:54:35However, we are going to take and change the way in which judges are selected and we're doing away with that, uh, process right now. It is important that we change this, because I believe that washington, D.C.
▶ 8:54:53Needs to have a new system that would be good for republicans or democrats who ever serve as president of the united states would now be able to nominate those people without waiting for the commission to make a determination about who the president could then choose or not choose. Washington, D.C. does not have enough sitting judges. They need more sitting judges.
▶ 8:55:21They would be people who would be from the community and who would serve here. But more importantly, I think it's important for us to understand that the president of the united states, whoever that president is, would give notice and consideration just like it might be done in any other state or in any other.
▶ 8:55:41Uh, because this is a federal city, the president could more quickly make decisions about who would be serving. I think prioritizing actions that will allow the court to do its job is exactly what this is about. Will they probably be conservatives? Yes. I would not doubt that.
▶ 8:56:03But at the time when the people of the united states make a decision to elect someone else, they would also have that equal. Right. And so I think it's a good process that would happen. Thus, I would say that I support h.r. 5125 because this this federal city is allowed to have a full court to move forward with. I yield back my time. >> gentleman yields back. Chair. Recognizes ranking member.
▶ 8:56:34>> thank you, Mr. chairman. I also want to strongly oppose this bill. The district of columbia judicial nominations act would give the president the sole power to make nominations for D.C. courts. A fundamental principle of american government is the right to self-determination. This includes the ability to have a say in how the judicial system is structured and run. This bill would take away the already limited power that D.C. has in the process of selecting local judges, undermining the basic right to self-government.
▶ 8:57:06We know that right now, the federal control over over D.C. continues to grow and grow as more proposals and bills are put in front of us. This is an absurd level of federal control over the D.C. local judge system. Now, some republicans have claimed that the constitution violates the. I'm sorry. Some republicans have claimed that the commission that is currently in place violates the constitution. We know the supreme court has actually disagreed on that. And for every U.S.
▶ 8:57:33State and territory that appoints its own judges, there is no role for the federal government. This bill is simply another republican attempt to gut the nonpartisan judiciary and put partizan right wing judges in its place. Now, D.C. currently has numerous judicial vacancies, but this is not because of the judicial nominations commission. The commission has made recommendations for nearly every single open position. It is the president and the senate which has failed to act on the nominations.
▶ 8:58:02And so the openings that some of my colleagues discuss are because the senate has not acted. If the house majority wants to improve the process, they certainly should speak with our colleagues in the senate. This bill would do nothing to improve the district's judicial system, and is a clear attempt to further erode america's nonpartisan judiciary. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and with that, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. I recognize myself to speak in support of the bill.
▶ 8:58:31I support the D.C. judicial nominations reform act. This legislation aligns with aligns 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.
▶ 8:59:00I want to thank representative pete sessions from texas for his leadership on this legislation. I urge support. Does any other member seek recognition? Miss norton? >> uh, Mr. chairman, I strongly oppose this bill, which eliminates the already small role of the district of columbia has in the nomination and appointment of judges to the local D.C. courts.
▶ 8:59:25There are two bills on filling vacancies on the D.C. courts. The committee should consider. Instead, one would give D.C. the authority to select judges locally, whether by election or appointment.
▶ 8:59:43Since republicans do not move, since republicans will not move such a bill, they should at least move a bill to address the long standing judicial vacancy crisis in the D.C. courts, which harms public safety and access to judges. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters opposing the D.C.
▶ 9:00:11Judicial nominations reform act from D.C. mayor muriel bowser and the entire D.C. council and D.C. attorney general ron schwab. >> without objection, so ordered. >> I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter on this bill from the D.C. judicial nomination commission. >> without objection to ordered. >> under the D.C. home rule act. The president and the.
▶ 9:00:41With the advice and consent of the senate, a chamber in which D.C. has no representation, appoints judges to the local courts. The president must make a nomination from a list of three candidates recommended by the judicial nomination commission. The commission, whose members must be D.C.
▶ 9:01:06Residents, hold a number, hold a public comment period on applicants for a vacancy on the court before submitting a list to the president, which gives D.C. residents an opportunity to to participate in the nomination process.
▶ 9:01:31The commission consists of one appointee of the president, two appointees of the district bar two appointees of the district mayor, one appointee of the district of the D.C. council, and one appointee of the chief judge of the us district court for D.C.
▶ 9:01:49Republicans say the judicial nomination commission is unconstitutional because it limits the president's authority to make nominations. That is wrong. The commission has long been in existence. For 50 years. Congress has plenary authority over D.C. not the president.
▶ 9:02:16Congress also has plenary authority over the territories and has given them the authority to select their own judges. Do republicans believe that is unconstitutional? I would refer my republican colleagues to the supreme court's 2019 decision regarding appointments to the puerto rican puerto rico control board.
▶ 9:02:43The court held the appointments clause of the constitution does not, quote, restrict the appointments of local officers that congress vests with primarily local duties. Close quote under the territorial of district clauses of the constitutional, the long standing judicial vacancy crisis in the local D.C.
▶ 9:03:09Courts exists not because of the commission, but primarily because the senate does not prioritize confirming judges. For example, there has been a vacancy on dc's highest local court since 2013.
▶ 9:03:25Congress should pass a bill to allow appointments to the court to take effect 30 days after the president makes a nomination, unless a disapproval resolution is enacted during that period. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill. >> does any other member seek recognition?
▶ 9:03:51Seeing none, the question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying I, I. All those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. The question is now in favorably reporting h.r. 5001 25, as amended. All those in favor signify by saying I, I all those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the bill is ordered favorably reported as amended. >> recorded vote please.
▶ 9:04:22>> a recorded vote is ordered as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. Our next item for consideration is a 5242, a bill to repeal dc's incarceration reduction amendment act of 2016 and the second chance amendment act of 2022. The clerk will please designate the bill. >> h.r. 5242, a bill to repeal dc's incarceration reduction amendment act of 2016 and the second chance amendment act of 2022.
▶ 9:04:52>> without objection, the bill shall be considered as read and open for amendment any point without objection so ordered. I recognize myself for five minutes for a statement on the bill. I support this legislation, which repeals the incarceration reduction amendment act of 2016 and the second chance amendment act of 2022.
▶ 9:05:09The incarceration reduction act allowed criminals convicted of serious crimes committed before their 18th birthday to petition the court for a sentence reduction after serving at least 15 years, regardless of mandatory minimum sentences. Furthermore, the second chance amendment act expanded expungement and record sealing for more individuals, as well as expanded automatic expungement for certain crimes. Collectively, these dc laws have created an environment where convicted criminals in the district are not held fully accountable for their crimes.
▶ 9:05:41Notably, united states attorney for the district of columbia jeanine pirro has expressed strong concern about these current laws, calling the dc council to immediately reconsider the legislation. While her two predecessors have also echoed many of her concerns with the sca, specifically, the doj attorney stressed the problems with using limited criminal justice resources on the process, quote, sealing past convictions rather than addressing present threats and prosecuting crime. End quote.
▶ 9:06:11I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I now recognize miss norton for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. speaker. I strongly oppose this amendment and paternalistic bill, which repeals dc law. The over 700,000 dc residents, the majority of whom are black and brown, are capable and worthy of governing themselves.
▶ 9:06:34I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters opposing this bill from dc mayor muriel bowser, the entire dc council and dc attorney general brian schwab. While congress has the authority to legislate on local dc matters, it does not have a duty to do so.
▶ 9:06:53In federalist 43, james madison said of dc residents, quote, uh, dc is not unique in enacting, uh, sentence review or record sealing laws. The federal government has both. Half the states have sentencing, have sentence review policies.
▶ 9:07:20Every state has a record sealing law. Why did dc enact its sentencing? Its sentence review law? If the senate, if the committee had examined the legal history of the law in a hearing, this congress congress, which it did not do, uh, before this markup, it would have learned the dc looked at the evidence on
▶ 9:07:54Deterrence, crime and age and brain development. Dc's sentence review law does not guarantee a sentence reduction. Instead, it gives an individual the ability to petition for one, the court must conduct a rigorous examination of the petition and conclude that the individual is not a danger, and
▶ 9:08:26That the interest of justice warrants the reduction. As of march, only 11 people or 3% have received a sentence reduction under dc law, or which have been convicted of a new crime. In contrast, in contrast of those released from federal prison, 45% are rearrested or returned to prison within three years.
▶ 9:08:55The purpose of record sealing laws is to reduce collateral consequences, including arrests that do not lead to charges. Under dc's record sealing law, convictions for several types of of felonies are ineligible for sealing for those felony convictions.
▶ 9:09:23There are that are eligible. The individual must petition the court, and the court must find it in the interest of justice. To seal the record, the court must consider several factors in its examination, and the record cannot be sealed before eight years after the end of the senate. I urge my colleagues to vote no, I yield back.
▶ 9:09:55>> to let you back any other member seek recognition. Ranking member. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I want to also just, um, be clear that I strongly oppose this bill. Repeals two laws enacted by the district of columbia. Of course, this bill overrules legislation passed by dc's elected officials who are accountable to the people of dc. Now, the purpose of the dc home rule act is to quote and I'll I'll quote it, grant to the inhabitants of the district of columbia powers of local self-government, end quote.
▶ 9:10:23I said it earlier, and I'll just I'll say it one more time. Um, I was a mayor of a big city for eight years before I came to congress. And folks, if they want to get involved in local government, should run for city council and run for mayor. Congress is not the place to be dictating to the people of dc how to run their city and their communities.
▶ 9:10:46We know that it's concerning for all of us, particularly here on on our side, that much of this effort tonight, through all these bills have happened without a additional hearing with the community, no conversations with folks on the ground, no community organizations being brought in. Local city council members were not consulted. Uh, the mayor's team was not involved in the creation of these bills. So at every single level, there has been no actual interaction or outreach to the community.
▶ 9:11:16I will tell you that as as mayor, as a local elected official, you spend a lot of time when you craft laws, doing community meetings, doing hearings, having public testimony in front of our body, which we do not do. Of course, here in this body. And that input from the actual community on the ground is so important in crafting legislation.
▶ 9:11:39So just write up these types of laws with no community input is wrong and of no benefit to the people of dc. I want to just add that the the incarceration reduction amendment act is a sentence review law. 25 states and even the federal government have similar policies. They want to make that very, very clear.
▶ 9:12:01Dc's law permits an individual who is convicted of a crime committed before the age of 25, and has served at least 15 years in prison, to petition the court to reduce their sentence. To reduce the term, the court, after considering specific factors, must find that the individual is not a danger if the interest of justice warrant a reduction. 1212 states and dc have criminal records filling laws as well that meet the bipartisan clean slate initiative minimum criteria.
▶ 9:12:29So the laws that have we have been reviewing and the work of the council and the community are important. They've passed those community tests. I urge my colleagues to respect the will of the 700,000 dc residents whose elected representatives enacted the incarceration reduction amendment act and the second amendment act, and please vote no. I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Anybody else have, uh, any comments?
▶ 9:12:58Seeing none I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will distribute the amendment to all members, and the clerk will designate the amendment. >> amendment to h.r 5242, as offered by Mr. comer of kentucky. >> without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I recognize myself for five minutes to explain the amendment. I'm offering this technical amendment that fixes a legal reference in the bill, and adds clarity that the effects of the bill's repeals will apply prospectively.
▶ 9:13:27I yield back. Does any other member seek recognition on the on the amendment? Uh, the question is on the amendment offered by. By the chairman. All those in favor signify by saying I, I all those opposed signify by saying no.
▶ 9:13:52In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. Do any other member seek recognition? Does the member from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> Mr. chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. >> with the clerk, will distribute the amendment to all members, and the clerk will designate the amendment. >> amendment to h.r 5242 is offered by Mr. perry of pennsylvania. >> without objection, the amendment is considered as read. I reserve a point of order. The gentleman from pennsylvania, Mr.
▶ 9:14:21Perry, is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I'm assuming this is amendment number 111. Just to clarify, as we all know, motorists are one of the largest special interest groups in the world, not just in america, with thousands of drivers commuting across the district each day, it is no wonder that the city relies on nearly 500 speed and traffic violation cameras spread across 5.5mi to generate millions and millions of dollars of petty
▶ 9:14:52Revenue, often from its own constituents and often from people that can least afford to pay it. In fact, these automated cameras were expected to yield over $1 billion between 2024 and 2028, with revenue declining over time as people figure out where they are, tell them, tell their friends and just keep a lookout for them. It doesn't really make anybody safer. It just generates revenue.
▶ 9:15:19In 2020, insurance provider aa deemed the city's enforcement of moving violations and parking tickets as predatory, not members of congress. This aa and to this day, city data shows how these cameras have made drivers safer is frankly, nonexistent. This amendment simply strikes all D.C.
▶ 9:15:40Code language, permitting the city to install and use traffic cameras, bringing driving autonomy back not only to the residents of the district of columbia, but to the people that want to come to their nation's capital and stay in hotels and go to restaurants and see the sights and not be fooled when they get home, when they get this ticket in the mail, and then they don't want to come back halfway across the country and fight it.
▶ 9:16:08And the city knows that they're just going to pay it whether they're innocent or not. These cameras are a shameless money grab that continue to continuously deter tourists, aggravate commuters and residents, and literally attacking local residents with hundreds of dollars in fines. It is unconscionable. It's not about safety. We all know it's about revenue generation and it needs to be ended immediately or support of the amendment, and I yield the balance of my time, Mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes ranking member.
▶ 9:16:39>> thank you, Mr. chairman. Look, I this is pretty actually. Um, sir, I just have to say this is pretty ridiculous. We're now arguing about local traffic enforcement and local traffic laws of the district in the united states congress. And I have to say, once again, if we're now going to micromanage traffic and public works and the way our traffic lights work, this is not the place to do it.
▶ 9:17:08This is what city councils and what mayors do. And I encourage my republican colleagues that want to work on issues of traffic in local jurisdictions, that they run for their local city councils or run for mayor of dc. I did the job for eight years. It's wonderful. We worked on a lot of traffic. But again, this is not the role of the us congress.
▶ 9:17:29And certainly right now what we're doing is we're continuing to chip away all the autonomy and the work that the community and the council and the members of of the district are doing every single day to make their communities better. These are the types of local matters that the home rule act commits to dc, and it actually was james madison who indicated, as we all know in the federalist papers, what this would all actually look like.
▶ 9:17:57We must end the exclusion of dc residents from our democracy. The 700,000 residents of dc, which is a larger population than two states, deserve not only control over their local affairs, over congressional voting rights. They deserve statehood. And they certainly do not deserve the us congress telling them how to manage their traffic laws. And with that, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Does any other member seek recognition on the amendment?
▶ 9:18:28Uh, the question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania, Mr. perry. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed signify by saying no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. A recorded vote is ordered as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. What?
▶ 9:18:49For what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> Mr. chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk, please report. >> amendment number two to h.r. 5242, as offered by Mr. perry of pennsylvania. >> uh, yeah. Hold on one second. >> I got it, I got it. Um, without objection, the minutes is considered as read.
▶ 9:19:19I reserve a point of order. The gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes to explain the amendment. >> well, thank you, Mr. chairman. It has been consistently proving that turning right after stopping at a red light has very little effect on driver safety. May maybe no effect. Certainly none. Statistically, drivers have long interpreted the right turn on red law to mean they must yield to oncoming traffic and pedestrians before executing a right turn.
▶ 9:19:47When they confront a red signal at an intersection, you got to stop, take a look around, and then you can turn right. It's done all over the country, but not in washington, D.C. sure enough, this interpretation interpretation has worked out extremely well from a safety and traffic movement perspective. And and if any place needs traffic movement, it is certainly washington, D.C.
▶ 9:20:09Meanwhile, the district of columbia has been actively enforcing a no turn on red law since january 1st of this year, with no exceptions in the name of public safety. I know it's in the name of public safety, but what it really is in the name of fleecing the residents of washington, D.C. and the visitors that come to this town to visit their capital, it is hard to believe this to be true.
▶ 9:20:33When the city consistently earns millions of dollars in revenue from traffic cameras with suspiciously sensitive motion trackers and vehicle accidents continue to happen daily. Drivers in the district want to be able to drive freely without dealing with nuanced, turning laws and, quite honestly, archaic ones that are almost not existent anywhere else in the country. This amendment simply repeals the D.C.
▶ 9:20:59Right turn on red band so that city traffic improve, improves, and our capital roads are once again operating in the 21st century. And I know that the good gentleman is going to claim time in opposition. But instead of yammering on about how we shouldn't be doing our constitutional duty, and I know that he's read the constitution where it discusses the district of columbia.
▶ 9:21:23And let me say for the record, that I'm for I'm in favor of giving the land the excess land back to the state of maryland. That should have it. I'm for that, and I hope we would move on that. But why don't we talk about the issue at hand, which is fleecing and robbing the people of the district of columbia and the visitors that come here? That's what this amendment is about, and that's what we should be discussing. So I urge adoption and I yield the balance, Mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields. Chair recognizes the ranking member.
▶ 9:21:53>> thank you, Mr. chairman. So we're back to debating traffic policy in the oversight committee for the district. Um, which does not seem one as a good use of our time. Uh, and to be clear, if we really wanted to focus on giving D.C. the ability to, to write its own future, we would be focusing and having a hearing on actual statehood and giving the district the ability to elect its representatives and support the work that the community is doing on the ground. This amendment demonstrates why D.C.
▶ 9:22:21Needs statehood and why the home rule act is in place so that residents have local self-government control, and to relieve congress of the burden of legislating on local matters. And it's it's certainly one thing when we're talking about a variety of matters tonight about about judicial system, about public safety. And now we are discussing the details of right turns and stop signs and traffic in the committee.
▶ 9:22:48And so again, this amendment is just another cut to dc's budget. It will unbalance dc's local budget. Congress requires dc to have a balanced budget. The mayor and the council are trying to do their jobs, working with the community and getting public testimony. We should we should be focused on supporting dc, not on rewriting their traffic laws. And with that, we should oppose this. And I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Any other member seek recognition.
▶ 9:23:20Seeing none. Uh, the question is now on the amendment offered by Mr. perry, the perry amendment number two, all those in favor signify by saying I, I all those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. >> recorded vote. >> recorded vote is ordered as previously announced. Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. >> thank you. And I do have two letters. I just want to insert into the record.
▶ 9:23:50>> please proceed. >> thank you. One is a letter from brady united against gun violence. Just opposing any bill that restricts the autonomy of the district or overrides the district's criminal justice laws. And second, a letter from the american americans united for separation of church and state opposing h.r. 5081, the soar act improvements act. >> thank you. >> without objection. So ordered. Does any other member seek recognition? Seeing none pursuant to the previous order, the chair declares the committee in recess, subject to the call of the chair at 8 p.m. Sharp, 8:00 pm in 50 minutes.
▶ 9:24:22The committee stands in recess.
▶ 10:19:43Coming back. It's 805. And we'll begin. Uh, I think everyone sees we have 25 votes, so we're going to we're going to go down the list. Hopefully everybody has a list in front of them. We'll begin. Uh, the question is on favorably reporting hr 5183. Uh, the, uh, gosar bill. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system.
▶ 10:20:10The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting hr 5183. Uh, I see we have a few more coming in. We'll wait a little longer on this one. Then we'll get rolling.
▶ 10:20:40>> gentlemen. Thank you. >> thank you. The first one on the top of the third column. >> you have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded. Does any member wish to change their vote? Okay. One more, one more. >> oh, no. Oh my goodness.
▶ 10:21:07>> have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report the vote. Total. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 22. The nays are 18. >> the ayes have it. The bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The question is now on favorably reporting h.r. 2693.
▶ 10:21:40Uh, the norton bill. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting h.r. 5183. >> so when you see. The one on the right at the top, we. >> have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded. Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote.
▶ 10:22:09Report the vote. Total. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 40. The nays are zero. >> the ayes have it. The bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. Yeah. The question is now on favorably reporting h.r. 5103. The bell amendment.
▶ 10:22:32Have, uh. >> what is okay. >> the committee. Okay, let me let me back up the committee. The committee will now resume consideration of h.r.
▶ 10:23:015000 103, make the district of columbia safe and beautiful act. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment. In the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. bell from missouri, members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on the amendment to the amendment of h.r. 5103 by Mr. bell from missouri.
▶ 10:23:22Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote. What's that? >> Mr. mfume is not recorded. >> oh, okay. Okay, well, we've got a technical difficulty here.
▶ 10:23:54>> virtually. >> yeah. It worked. Now you work now. Alright. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? The clerk will close the vote. Report the vote. Total. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 19. The nays are 24. >> the ayes have it and the are. The nays have it. And the bill is not recorded favorably. >> we have another.
▶ 10:24:25>> the question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment, in the nature of a substitute offered by miss ansari, members will record to vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on the amendment to the amendment of h.r. 5103 by miss ansari. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded?
▶ 10:24:50Does any member wish to change the vote? Seeing none, the clerk will close the vote and report the vote. Total. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 19. The nays are 25. >> the nays have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 10:25:15The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 5103, all those in favor signify by saying I. All those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion chair, the ayes have it. The amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 5000 103 has agreed to.
▶ 10:25:41The question is on favorably reporting h.r. 5103. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably report reporting h.r. 5103. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded?
▶ 10:26:09Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote. Report the vote. Total. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 25. The nays are 19. >> the ayes have it. The bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The question is on february reporting h.r.
▶ 10:26:355214, the district of columbia cash bail reform act, by representative stefanik. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting h.r. 5214 by stefanik. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? Well?
▶ 10:27:08The clerk will close the vote. Report the vote. Total. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 26. The nays are 19. >> the ayes have it. The bill is ordered. Favor reported. Without objection. The motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The question is now on favorably reporting h.r. 5172. The strong sentences for safer D.C. streets act by representative biggs members will record their votes using the electronic voting system.
▶ 10:27:38The clerk will now open the vote in favor of h.r. 5001 72 by representative biggs. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote. Report to vote. Total. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 26. The nays are 19.
▶ 10:28:08>> the ayes have it. The bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The question is now in favor of reporting h.r. 5163, the clean and managed public spaces act, by representative timmons. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorable reporting. H.r. 5163.
▶ 10:28:37Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote. Report the vote. Total. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 25. The nays are 20. >> the ayes have it. The bill is ordered favorably reported, as amended. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The question is now in favor of reporting h.r.
▶ 10:29:034922, the dc criminal reforms, to immediately make everyone safer. The dc crimes act by representative donalds members will record your votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on h.r. 4922. >> yeah.
▶ 10:29:31>> have all members been recorded? Does anyone remember the vote? The clerk will close the vote. Report the vote. Total. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 26. The nays are 19. >> the ayes have it. The bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The question is on favorably reporting h.r. 5140.
▶ 10:30:00The district of columbia juvenile sentencing reform act, by representative gil. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting h.r. 5140. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change your vote? The clerk will close the vote. Report the vote. Total. >> Mr.
▶ 10:30:28Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 26. The nays are 19. >> ayes have it. The bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The committee will now resume consideration of h.r. 5181, the soar act. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment. In the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. frost from florida, this is the frost amendment one members will record their votes using the electronic voting system.
▶ 10:30:57The clerk will now open the vote on the amendment of h.r 5181, the frost amendment one. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will report the vote total. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 20. The nays are 25. >> the nays have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 10:31:25Uh, the committee will now, uh, the the question is now on the previously postponed amendment to amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. frost from florida. This will be the frost amendment. Number two members were recorded to vote using electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on the amendment to the amendment of hr 5181, the frost amendment two. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded?
▶ 10:31:54Does any member wish to change their vote? >> one moment. >> I see it, I see it all right. The the clerk will report the vote. Total. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 20, the nays are 25. >> the. Nay, uh, the nays prevail. The amendment is not agreed to, uh, the question is now on the previous amendment to amendment. The nature of substitute offered by Mr. frost from florida.
▶ 10:32:24Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on the amendment to the amendment of h.r. 5001 81, the frost amendment, number three. Have all members been recorded to wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote, Mr. randall? The clerk, will close the vote. Reports. Vote total. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 20.
▶ 10:32:53The nays are 25. >> the nays have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment to the amendment. The nature of a substitute offered by. Miss simon. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on the amendment to the amendment of h.r. 5001 81, the simon amendment.
▶ 10:33:21Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change the vote? Seeing none, the clerk will close the vote. Report the vote. Total. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 20, the nays are 25. >> the nays have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 10:33:48The question is now on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 5181, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed signify by saying no. In the opinion. Chair. The ayes have it. The amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 5081 is agreed to. The question is on favorably reporting hr 5181.
▶ 10:34:15The saw act improvement act by doctor fox. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting h.r. 5001 81 by doctor fox. Have all members been recorded to wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change the vote? The clerk will close the vote. Report the vote. Total. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 25.
▶ 10:34:44The nays are 20. >> the ayes have it. And the. The bill is passed. The question is now in favor reporting h.r. 5107, the common sense law enforcement accountability now in D.C. act by representative clyde. Members recorded their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reported h.r. 5000 107.
▶ 10:35:08Have all been recorded who wish to be recorded. Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote. Report the vote. Total. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 26. The nays are 19. >> the ayes have it. The bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The question is now in favor of h.r.
▶ 10:35:385143, the district of columbia policing protection act, by representative higgins from louisiana. Members are reported to vote using electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting h.r. 5143. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote reports.
▶ 10:36:08Vote total. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 25. The nays are 20. >> the ayes have it. The bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The question is now in favor of reporting h.r. 5179. The district of columbia attorney general appointment reform act, by representative fallon from texas. Members record their votes using electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on february, reporting h.r. 5179.
▶ 10:36:41Have all members been recorded to wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? Cloud. The clerk will close the vote. Report the vote total. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 25. The nays are 20. >> uh, the motion is adopted. Without objection. The motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The question is now in favor of reporting h.r.
▶ 10:37:105125, the district of columbia judicial nominations reform act by representative sessions from texas. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting h.r. 5125 by representative sessions from texas. Have all members been recorded to wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change or vote? The clerk will close. Okay. The clerk will close the vote and report the total. >> Mr.
▶ 10:37:40Chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 25. The nays are 20. >> the ayes have it. The bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The committee will now resume consideration of h.r. 5242, a bill to repeal dc's incarceration reduction amendment act of 2016 and the second chance amendment act of 2022. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania, Mr. perry.
▶ 10:38:07Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on the amendment to h.r 5242, the perry amendment one. Have all members been recorded to wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote. Report to vote total.
▶ 10:38:39>> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 25. The nays are 20. >> the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. The committee will now resume. The question is now on the previously postponed amendment offered by Mr. perry from pennsylvania. This is the perry amendment. Two members will record the vote using electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on the amendment to hr 5242 by Mr. perry, the perry amendment two.
▶ 10:39:09>> she's not been here all year, but she. >> have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded. Does any member wish to change your vote? The clerk will close the vote. Report the vote. Total. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 25. The nays are 20. >> the ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. The question is on favorably reporting hr 5242, as amended.
▶ 10:39:41Members will record their vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk will now open the vote on favorably reporting h.r 5242. >> lizzie fletcher substitute. Okay. >> you have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded. >> cloud. Cloud.
▶ 10:40:13>> you hadn't voted. >> you haven't voted. >> okay. You're not going to. >> okay. >> have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote. Report the vote. Total. >> no, sir. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the eyes are 24. The nays are 20. >> the ayes have it. There's one more. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. Is that it? >> we're done. >> okay.
▶ 10:40:40Pursuant to house rule 11, clause two, I ask the committee members have the right to file with the clerk of the committee, supplemental, additional, minority, and dissenting views without objection. Additionally, the staff is authorized to make necessary technical changes to the bill was ordered reported today, subject to the approval of the minority. Without objection, so ordered. I appreciate everyone coming out this late. This has been a long day. We've had great participation. If there's no further business before the committee, without objection. Yeah. All right. Thank you. The committee stands adjourned.
▶ 10:41:13>> hey, I don't ever remember you.