Disapproving the Action of the District of Columbia Council in Approving the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this profoundly undemocratic, paternalistic resolution.

The House of Representatives, in which nearly 700,000 District of Columbia residents have no voting representation, is attempting to nullify legislation enacted by D.C.'s local legislature, whose members are elected by D.C. residents.

By scheduling this vote, I can only conclude that the Republican leadership believes that D.C. residents, a majority of whom are Black and Brown, are either unworthy or incapable of governing themselves.

The dictionary defines democracy as ``a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.'' D.C.'s lack of voting representation in Congress and Congress' plenary authority over D.C. are the antithesis of democracy.

I remind House Republicans that they once professed support for local control of local affairs. Their fiscal year 2016 budget said this: ``America is a diverse Nation. Our cities, States, and local communities are best equipped and naturally inclined to develop solutions that will serve their populations, but far too often local leaders are limited by numerous Federal dictates.''

The legislative history and merits of the legislation enacted by the District of Columbia that are the subject of this resolution are irrelevant to the consideration of this resolution, since there is never justification for Congress nullifying legislation enacted by the District, but I would like to set the record straight.

The Revised Criminal Code Act comprehensively revises D.C.'s criminal code, which has not been done since it was created in 1901. Everyone in the D.C. legal system agrees that such a revision is long overdue. The bill is the product of over a decade of work by D.C. to create a modern, comprehensive, systematic criminal code. A majority of States, both red and blue, have adopted such a code.

In 2016, D.C. enacted legislation establishing an independent agency, the Criminal Code Reform Commission, to recommend a new criminal code. The Commission, which consisted of nonpartisan experts, drafted the Revised Criminal Code Act over nearly 5 years in a fully public process. The voting members of the Commission's advisory group, including the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, unanimously approved transmitting the bill to the D.C. Council and the Mayor.

The D.C. Council held three hearings on this bill. The council, as required by Congress, passed the bill on two separate occasions by votes of 12-0 and 13-0. The Mayor vetoed the bill. The council overrode the veto by a vote of 12-1. The provisions of the bill do not take effect until October 1, 2025, at the earliest.

I say to every Member of Congress: Keep your hands off D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about crime in D.C., so I think it is fair to ask: How do the Revised Criminal Code Act penalties compare to the penalties in the States, the States represented in this House? I will cite a few examples from Kentucky, Chairman Comer's home State.

The Revised Criminal Code Act has a higher mandatory minimum penalty for murder one than Kentucky.

The Revised Criminal Code Act has a higher maximum penalty for involuntary manslaughter and unarmed robbery than Kentucky.

How about armed and unarmed carjacking? The Revised Criminal Code Act has specific armed and unarmed carjacking crimes. Kentucky does not.

The Revised Criminal Code Act maximum penalty for armed carjacking is higher than for first degree robbery in Kentucky. The Revised Criminal Code Act maximum penalty for unarmed carjacking is higher than for unarmed robbery in Kentucky.

How about felony murder? The Revised Criminal Code Act has a maximum sentence of 20 years with a maximum of 30 years for aggravating factors. Kentucky abolished felony murder.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from more than 100 groups led by D.C. Vote calling on Congress to keep its hands off of D.C. February 7, 2023. Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer, Washington, DC. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Washington, DC. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Washington, DC. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Washington, DC.

Dear Congressional Leadership:

Congress Should Stay Out of the District of Columbia's Local Affairs

We, the undersigned organizations, representing millions of Americans from across the country, are concerned about the numerous measures that have been introduced that will unjustly undermine critical local decisions made by the people of the District of Columbia and their elected leadership. These local laws were enacted to address important local concerns, most notably criminal justice reform, reproductive freedom, democracy and equal treatment under the law. Efforts by members of Congress to impose legislative ``riders'' or pass disapproval resolutions usurp the prerogative of the District of Columbia's elected mayor and council and the residents they represent.

We also urge Congress to refrain from taking action that could threaten the District's Local Budget Autonomy Act. The Act allows the District to spend local tax dollars based on its local budget at the beginning of the new fiscal year. The DC Superior Court has ruled the Act is valid, and the DC Council and mayor are proceeding with the District's local budget in accordance with the law.

We understand that some in Congress are still seeking to use the legislative process to impose policy riders upon the people of the District. The undersigned organizations advocate on diverse issues and are united in our opposition to the inclusion of any legislative vehicle that overrides, limits or otherwise usurps locally elected decision-making by the District of Columbia.

Already, in just the first month of the new Congress, legislators have promised or introduced measures that takes away the fundamental right to self-governance from the people of Washington, DC.

Congressional interference in these local matters is unfair and intolerable.

Right now, Americans are debating important issues in communities throughout this country. But what is not up for debate is who gets to decide these questions. DC's locally- elected leadership should decide what is best for the people of the District of Columbia.

The Mayor of the District of Columbia and the DC Council were elected by DC residents to represent their interests. Congress does not impose its views on any other local jurisdiction, and Americans in DC have no vote in the Congress to cast against this egregious and increasingly relentless attack on their local democracy. We expect Congress to be consistent by letting District residents manage their own affairs without interference or meddling.

We urge you to respect local autonomy and oppose any efforts that seek to force Congress' views upon DC residents. Sincerely,

DC Vote; 51 for 51; ACLU; ACLU of DC; All Souls Church Unitarian; American Family Voices; American Federation of Government Employees; Anacostia Coordinating Council; Bend the Arc: Jewish Action; Better Organizing to Win Legalization; Black Voters Matter Fund; Blue Future; Capital Stonewell Democrats; Center for Common Ground; Center for Popular Democracy; Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW); Clean Elections Texas; Clean Water Action; Coalition on Human Needs; Common Cause; Common Defense; D.C. Affairs Community of the District of Columbia Bar *; DC Committee to Build a Better Restaurant Industry; DC Democratic State Committee; DC Development Disabilities Council.

DC Environmental Network; DC Fiscal Policy Institute; DC for Democracy; DC Jobs With Justice; DC League of Women Voters; DC Marijuana Justice; DC Statehood Coalition; DC Statehood Green Party; Death with Dignity; Defending Rights & Dissent; Democracy for America Advocacy Fund; Democratic Messaging Project; Drug Policy Alliance; East Area Progressive Democrats (EAPD); Economic Policy Institute; End Citizens United//Let America Vote Action Fund; FairVote; Family Values @ Work; Federation of Community Associations; Friends of the Earth U.S.; GLAA; GLSEN; Greenspeace USA.

Harriet's Wildest Dreams; Health in Justice Action Lab, Northeastern University HIPS; Human Rights Campaign; In Our Own Voice; Indivisible; Indivisible Chicago Alliance; Indivisible Marin; Indivisible MN03; Indivisible Northern Nevada; Indivisible Santa Fe; Jean-Michel Cousteau's Ocean Futures Society; Justice Policy Institute; Lake Research Partners; Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG); League of Conservation Voters; League of Women Voters of the United States; Legacy DC; LONG LIVE GOGO; Love Huntsville; Metro Washington Council, AFL-CIO; More Than Our Crimes; National Center for Lesbian Rights; National Center for Transgender Equality; National Council of Jewish Women; National Disability Rights Network (NDRN); National Employment Law Project; National Immigration Law Center.

National Organization for Women; National Partnership for Women & Families; National Women's Law Center; Neighbors United for DC Statehood; Netroots Nation; NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice; Northridge Indivisible; Oregonizers; Our Revolution; Peace Action; People For the American Way; Physicians for Reproductive Health; Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, DC; Plymouth Area Indivisible; Progressive Democrats Of America; Public Citizen; Public Justice Center; Rachel Carson Council; SEIU; SEIU 32BJ; Sojourners; SPACES In Action; Stand Up America.

Statehood4DC; Take on Wall Street, a project of Americans for Financial Reform; The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; The Workers Circle; United Church of Christ, Justice and Local Church Ministries; United Democratic Women; United Nations Association of National Capital Area; Venice Resistance; Veterans United for DC Statehood; Voices for Progress; Voto Latino; Washington AIDS Partnership; Washington Parks & People; Washington, D.C. Lawyer Chapter of the American Constitution Society; Who Speaks For Me; Women's Bar Assocation of the District of Columbia.

* The views expressed herein are presented on behalf of the D.C. Affairs Community, a voluntary association of individuals, most but not necessarily all of whom are members of the D.C. Bar. The D.C. Bar itself made no monetary contribution to fund the preparation or submission of this statement. Moreover, the views expressed herein have been neither approved nor endorsed by the D.C. Bar, its Board of Governors, or its general membership.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to cite examples of increased maximum penalties in D.C. You can't call D.C. soft on crime.

For example, nonconsensual sexual conduct, which is the most commonly charged sex event, current maximum, 6 months. New maximum, 2 years.

Attempted murder, current maximum, 5 years. New maximum, 23.5 years.

Attempted sexual assault, current maximum, 5 years. New maximum, 15 years.

Threats to do bodily harm, current maximum, 6 months. New maximum, 2 years.

Possession of a machine gun, sawed-off gun, or ghost gun, current maximum, 1 year. New maximum, 4 years.

It increases the maximum penalties for misdemeanor and felony assault on a police officer.

I would like to cite examples of new crimes. Negligent homicide, maximum penalty is 4 years. The current law does not criminalize negligently causing the death of another, except by operating a vehicle.

Reckless endangerment with a firearm. The maximum penalty is 2 years for firing a gun in public, even if the gun is not aimed at anyone or any property.

I urge the Members to look at how the D.C. Council has enhanced penalties, not reduced them, making this city safer for everyone.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source