Providing for Consideration of H.R. Terminating Cdc Requirement for Proof of Covid-19 Vaccination for Foreign Travelers; Providing for Consideration of H.J. Res. Disapproving the Action of the District of Columbia Council in Approving the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of Providing for Consideration of H.J. Res. Disapproving the Action of the District of Columbia Council in Approving the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy) for yielding the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, here we are, 6 weeks into a new Congress, and the Republican majority has yet to bring substantive, serious legislation to the floor that does anything to address the serious issues confronting our great Nation.

Instead, we have seen Republican leadership buckle under time and again to the demands of a rightwing minority that seems more interested in stoking controversy and conspiracy theories than crafting actual legislation or governing.

Instead of delivering for the American people, we have seen precious time and taxpayer dollars wasted in power struggles and political stunts, rather than doing the people's business.

True to that pattern, today's rule provides for the consideration of three deeply problematic measures, measures that further the objectives of that extremist minority, measures that stoke division, that undermine government institutions, and that threaten fundamental American freedoms when they don't align with the radical right's ideology.

By caving to these fringe forces, Republican leadership is squandering precious time and taxpayer dollars that would be better spent working together on the issues most Americans want us to address lowering prices; housing, healthcare, and education needs; making our communities safer; and protecting our planet.

The first two resolutions under consideration today would nullify legislation recently passed by the democratically elected D.C. Council and, in the process, would undermine the fundamental right of citizens of Washington, D.C., to political self-determination.

H.J. Res. 24 would overrule the Local Resident Voting Rights Act, which was recently passed by the D.C. Council.

With this measure, the citizens of D.C. decided to join other municipalities around the country in allowing noncitizen residents to vote in local D.C. elections.

H.J. Res. 26 would nullify the Revised Criminal Code Act, the RCCA, which reformed D.C.'s criminal code. That code has not been comprehensively revised since it was first enacted in 1901.

The American people expect their Members of Congress to prioritize their most pressing kitchen table issues, but instead of focusing on lowering costs or creating better-paying jobs, we are here today to interfere with legislation duly enacted by the citizens of D.C. and their government.

Not only is that not what our constituents sent us to do, it is distinctly antidemocratic to substitute our policy judgment for the local policy judgment of D.C.'s elected officials.

The nearly 700,000 residents of the District of Columbia, a majority of whom are Black and Brown, are worthy and capable of self-government.

Instead of seeking to undo the work of that democratically elected body, we should be holding hearings and considering whether it is finally time to address the issue of D.C. statehood.

As my colleague, Mr. Raskin, said in the Rules Committee yesterday, if my Republican colleagues insist on acting as a colonial overseer of the District of Columbia, the least they can do is hear from the people of D.C.

Those promoting these resolutions should have called a hearing or at least attempted to engage the D.C. Council and community leaders in some way.

If my colleagues think they have the best interests of the people of D.C. at heart, let's hear from the D.C. residents.

I believe they have made it quite clear they don't appreciate being made a pawn in national political battles.

We owe it to the people of D.C. to enact statehood, not this radical attempt to interfere with the district's Democratic process.

The subject of these disapproval resolutions, the Revised Criminal Code Act and Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act, should be irrelevant.

But just so we are clear, let's look at the legislative history of those two acts that our colleagues across the aisle want to overturn.

Under the D.C. Home Rule Act, which is a Federal statute, the democratically elected 13-member D.C. Council is required to enact a new law twice, with at least 13 days intervening between each vote, in order to pass legislation.

Legislation passed by the council and affirmed by the Mayor or with a veto override is then transmitted to Congress for a review period.

The legislation takes effect at the expiration of the review period unless Congress intervenes by passing a resolution of disapproval.

Congress has only overturned duly elected D.C. laws three times before the misguided efforts that we are forced to consider today.

Now, the D.C. Council passed the Revised Criminal Code Act by votes of 12-0 and 13-0. While the Mayor vetoed it, the council voted to override that veto by a vote of 12-1.

The Revised Criminal Code Act is the culmination of a 5-year process to revise and update D.C.'s criminal code, which, as mentioned previously, has not happened since it was first created over a century ago.

Everyone in the D.C. legal system, from prosecutors to judges to defense attorneys to scholars, agrees that this revision is long overdue.

Our colleagues across the aisle object to the revised criminal code that has been crafted with so much care to meet local conditions because they don't like some sentencing provisions that seek to match up the law with current standards.

They posit that harsher penalties would be a greater deterrent to the criminal conduct that they want to target when, in fact, the data shows that harsher penalties in some of the States that they represent does not, in fact, deter that conduct.

So think about this: Republican politicians from Georgia and Kentucky and Texas, who haven't bothered to take the time to hold a hearing or study this issue, have decided to parachute in and dictate to the 700,000 residents of D.C. that they know better than those residents and their elected Representatives how to run their city.

Can you imagine how those politicians would react if the D.C. Council tried to tell them how to run the jails in Athens, Georgia; Lexington, Kentucky; or Buffalo, New York?

What is particularly infuriating is that our Republican colleagues claim that they want to block the D.C. law because they want to be tougher on crime. But, once again, this is empty rhetoric. Overturning the D.C. criminal code will do nothing to increase public safety in D.C. or anywhere else.

As I mentioned at the outset, we are 6 weeks into the new Congress, and the Republican majority has not brought forward any legislation to address crime in America.

They won't consider legislation to block the flood of unregulated guns into American communities, they won't ban the weapons of war that take innocent lives in horrifying and predictably regular mass shootings, and they haven't taken any action to address the societal issues that produce violence.

The second resolution under consideration would vacate the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act, which the D.C. Council passed by votes of 12-1 and 12-0 after holding hearings and soliciting public comment.

This act would allow otherwise qualified D.C. residents who are not U.S. citizens to vote in local D.C. elections.

Qualified noncitizen residents could vote in races for Mayor, council, attorney general, neighborhood commissioners, school district, and local referenda.

Of course, this does not apply to Federal elections. Our colleagues are trying to paint this legislation as some radical new idea, but there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution--which I understand was read here on the floor today, so we could check--that prohibits noncitizens from voting in local, State, or Federal elections.

In fact, there is a long history in the U.S. of noncitizens being allowed to vote in those elections, and they have done so since at least 1704 in what would later become the U.S. At various points, 40 States have permitted noncitizens to vote. Congress only first prohibited noncitizens from voting in Federal elections in 1996.

Currently, there are at least 15 municipalities that permit noncitizens to vote in local elections. They do so in recognition of the fact that noncitizens, who are allowed to vote under such local laws, pay a variety of State, local, and Federal taxes, and they have an inherent interest in helping to shape policies in the communities where they live.

I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to oppose these profoundly undemocratic and paternalistic resolutions.

Now, today's rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 185, which would terminate the CDC requirement for proof of COVID-19 vaccination for foreign travelers to enter the U.S.

The CDC order was put in place to open the world back up and allow vaccinated foreign travelers to visit the U.S. while keeping our community safe.

Revising or revoking the COVID-19 public health guidance should be at the behest of public health experts with understanding and knowledge of global case trends, up-to-date data, and real-time safety information about emerging infections and COVID-19 epidemiology, not partisan politicians looking to settle political scores or curry favor with the disgraced former President and his base.

This bill would upend our current COVID-19 travel protocol, and worse, tie the hands of our public health experts by prohibiting any future order to require COVID-19 vaccinations as a condition of entering the United States.

As I said last week when the majority brought several bills to the floor attacking COVID-19 emergency declarations and vaccines, we shouldn't jeopardize our progress in fighting COVID with political stunts.

This is just the latest bill inspired by anti-vax conspiracy theories that has been rushed to the floor, uninformed by any hearings or any scientific evidence.

It is dangerous to repeatedly mislead the public about the efficacy of these vaccines that are proven to save lives.

This bill increases the risk of spreading new variants, just as hospitals and public health infrastructure are trying to rebuild.

Once again, an extremist fringe is putting politics over science and undermining public health experts at the expense of the American people, and Republican leadership is letting them get away with it.

We need Republican leaders to embrace science and promote the public good, instead of undermining them to score political points.

I am disappointed that my colleagues continue to waste this body's time and taxpayer dollars on frivolous bills and resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, the resolutions and bill we are considering today do not address the issues we were elected to address for the American people.

We have now been in this Congress for over a month and have yet to take up any serious legislation. I hope my colleagues can work in a bipartisan manner to address the problems our constituents sent us here to solve.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from The Sentencing Project advocacy group, which is signed by over a dozen civil rights organizations opposing the Republican efforts to obstruct the enactment of the District of Columbia's Revised Criminal Code Act.

It states: ``Washingtonians know best how to address criminal justice policies in their community and deserve the right to determine their own laws. Local leaders are better positioned and retain more expertise to address safety and justice issues in the District than Congress.'' The Sentencing Project, February 6, 2023. Re Oppose efforts to obstruct the District of Columbia's Revised Criminal Code Act. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Chairman Jim Jordan, Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Ranking Member Jerry Nadler, Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker McCarthy and Minority Leader Jeffries: On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we write to express our opposition to efforts to obstruct the District of Columbia's Revised Criminal Code Act, including any resolution of disapproval or budget rider. The Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 (RCCA) is the product of 16 years of research, an expert commission, 51 public meetings, extensive public feedback, and robust negotiation. As such, the D.C. Council voted unanimously to pass the RCCA and the RCCA is supported by 83% of District voters. Opponents of the RCCA, however, are spreading misinformation about the RCCA's impact in a blatant attempt to erode home rule and trample on the rights of District residents. We urge you to oppose these attacks on the RCCA and vote against any resolution of disapproval.

Washingtonians know best how to address criminal justice policies in their community and deserve the right to determine their own laws. Local leaders are better positioned and retain more expertise to address safety and justice issues in the District than Congress. Federal overstepping to interfere with RCCA's implementation, which does not go into effect until 2025, would be inappropriate and misguided. The D.C. Council can continue to amend the RCCA, if desired, to address stakeholder concerns.

The RCCA is a long-overdue modernization of the D.C. Criminal Code. Since the 1960s, dozens of states have embarked on criminal code reforms, removing obsolete provisions, ensuring sentences are proportionate and equitable, and simplifying overlapping charges. The RCCA follows that trend--the District last comprehensively revised the criminal code in 1901. A revision to reflect best practices in sentencing and criminological evidence is necessary to ensure justice, fairness, and safety in the District. By ensuring the statutes are clear and constitutional, the RCCA makes the law easier for police officers, attorneys, and judges to understand and administer.

To arrive at that revision, the District engaged in a thorough, transparent, and evidence-based process. The D.C. Council created a Criminal Code Reform Commission (CCRC) which prepared recommendations based on a review of recent code reforms in other jurisdictions, current sentencing practices in D.C. Superior Court, court data, recommendations by the American Law Institute, social science, and the current sentencing guidelines. The CCRC Advisory Group, whose five voting members included representatives from the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, and two professors from Georgetown University Law Center and George Washington University Law School, unanimously voted to approve the recommendations. The D.C. Council also made numerous changes to the introduced version of the bill, reflecting negotiations with the Metropolitan Police Department, the U.S. Attorney's Office, the Office of the Attorney General, the Public Defender Service, D.C. Superior Court judges, and members of the community. As Mayor Bowser acknowledged in her January 4, 2023 letter to D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, there is ``consensus agreement'' on ``95% of the bill.''

The RCCA is a balanced bill--bringing the District in line with national sentencing norms by lengthening some sentences, reducing some maximums, and other reforms. The RCCA includes many modernizations, such as aligning D.C. with the majority of the country by creating the right to a jury trial for misdemeanors. The RCCA also lengthened sentences for several offenses and permits enhancements and stacking that can make the sentences much longer. The RCCA increases penalties for possession of assault rifles, ghost guns, and restricted explosive devices, to 4 years from 1 year under current law. It also creates a new offense, endangerment with a firearm, which criminalizes discharging a firearm in a public place, or in a manner that creates a substantial risk of death. Additionally, the RCCA reduced the statutory maximum for certain offenses, in order to improve proportionality and reflect current sentencing practices, which are typically well below the maximum. As such, the sentence maximum changes in the RCCA are not expected to lower sentences for serious crimes. For example, the RCCA's 20-year maximum penalty for robbery is seven times higher than the median sentence imposed for robbery, and 11 years higher than the 97.5th percentile sentence imposed for robbery. For robberies and carjackings, over 97.5% of sentences currently imposed by judges are lower than the maximum allowable penalty outlined in the RCCA.

The people and leaders of the District support the RCCA. The RCCA is also backed by an abundance of research, data, and stakeholder feedback. Attempts by Congress to intervene are rooted in efforts to end home rule and falsehoods. We urge you to respect the will of Washingtonians and oppose all efforts, whether a resolution of disapproval or budget rider, to obstruct the RCCA. Sincerely,

American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia, Center for Disability Rights, DC Justice Lab, Drug Policy Alliance, Due Process Institute, FAMM, FWD.us, Justice Policy Institute, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, The Festival Center, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The Sentencing Project.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCANLON. Norton), our esteemed colleague.

I am afraid we have to dig into the weeds a little bit with Rules Committee process right now.

Earlier, the gentleman from New York said that with this rule, the new majority has tied the number of times that more minority amendments were made in order than majority amendments.

While I am certainly supportive of minority amendments, that sounded wrong, so we asked our staff to check. They haven't had much time while we have been speaking, but they have already found at least two times that the Democratic majority did this in the last Congress, H.R. 302 and H.R. 963. Perhaps our colleagues need to check their facts.

What I do know is that this rule contains the 18th and 19th closed rules of this new Congress. That is already over 30 percent of what we did during the first year of the Democratic majority. So it is more like a return to Republican habits, just like they ran the most-closed Congress in history last time they had control.

I am also astonished to learn that it was the possibility of family separation that inspired our colleagues to introduce H.R. 185, when the issue of family separation due to our outmoded, broken immigration system has not served to inspire any urgency to reform that system.

Jackson Lee).

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me just say we will all have an opportunity to debate this legislation in general debate. I do think it is important to frame the challenges that all of these particular initiatives have.

Frankly, let me, first of all, say that I am disappointed that the Rules Committee did not let a very straightforward amendment which I think expresses the view of many of us to strike the entire text of H.R. 185.

During the pandemic, I organized a bipartisan COVID-19 task force. We worked very hard; included a Republican, a doctor, and other Members. We held meetings with doctors. We held meeting with scientists, hospital administrators. They were very grateful.

Many of you may have heard me say that I did over 70-plus testing sites and over 70-plus vaccination sites, going up to 150 in my community.

It is about the science. People understood the science and they gravitated toward vaccines. That means that any elimination of the requirement of foreign travelers should be on the science, not to be on the whims of individuals who believe that they are helping to unify families. It is about the science.

The reason why we are where we are today, even though there are 500 people getting COVID, and there are people dying every single day, is because more Americans believed in the science than did not. That is why we developed this protection. So I think this is wrongheaded to have this legislation.

Finally, H.J. Res. 24 and H.J. Res. 26, disapproving the actions of the District of Columbia on voting rights and on the criminal code is, again, undermining local rule, and they have the right to local rule.

Constitutionally, everyone should have the right to equal protection under the law in the place where they are.

Washington, D.C., Mr. Speaker, should not have the intrusion of the United States Congress.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that H.R. 185 does not take effect unless it is certified that it won't decrease Social Security benefits.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, Social Security is the bedrock of our Nation's social safety net. Since its inception, it has lifted millions of our seniors out of poverty. Protecting the benefits that Social Security provides should be a priority for this Congress, for everyone in this Congress, as my Republican colleagues demand reckless cuts in exchange for paying our Nation's bills.

Democrats are going to continue to push to ensure that these vital benefits are protected and will continue to give Republicans every opportunity to ease the American people's anxiety by demonstrating with their votes, including on this measure, that they do not intend to cut Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, these measures today do nothing to address the important issues facing American families. These resolutions are misguided and unserious at best and deeply undemocratic at their core. House Republicans continue to waste precious time and taxpayer dollars on power struggles and political stunts.

Republican leadership's acquiescence to the fringe forces in their party is a disservice to the American public. With all of the challenges this Congress should contend with, an extremist overreach to nullify democratically passed legislation and rolling back lifesaving COVID protections is a waste of precious time and resources.

My Democratic colleagues and I are here to work on behalf of the American people and are ready to do the serious work of delivering for them, fighting for better jobs and safer communities. We will oppose extremist attempts to stoke division, to undermine government institutions, and to threaten fundamental American freedoms.

I invite my colleagues to work across the aisle, to work together on the issues that matter to all of our constituents: lowering prices; addressing housing, healthcare, and education needs; making our communities safer; and protecting our environment.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source