D.C. Criminal Reforms to Immediately Make Everyone Safe Act of 2024
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this radical, undemocratic, and paternalistic bill, as do the three top local, elected District of Columbia officials: Mayor Muriel Bowser, Council Chair Phil Mendelson, and D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record their joint letter opposing this bill. May 14, 2024. Hon. Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries: We write today to express our opposition to H.R. 7530, the ``DC CRIMES Act,'' which we understand the House will consider this week.
Since the start of the 118th Congress, the House has made a number of attempts to legislate on local District affairs. We always welcome opportunities to partner with Congress on issues. But the proposals included in H.R. 7530 would actually prevent the District government from taking steps to address dynamic crime trends.
In recent months, the Mayor and the Council have put into place several pieces of public safety legislation that included more than 100 new initiatives that have, among other things, expanded pretrial detention for violent offenders and enhanced penalties for certain gun crimes. Violent crime has decreased by 25 percent and property crime has decreased by 14 percent when compared to the same period last year. The Metropolitan Police Department (WPD) is making more arrests and the Office of the Attorney General is prosecuting cases at a rate almost double the prepandemic rates. And just this week, the Council is continuing its work on a Fiscal Year 2025 budget proposed by the Mayor that will make further strategic investments in MPD and crime prevention efforts.
If H.R 7530 were law today, it would block us from taking some of these steps. By prohibiting the Council from enacting ``any act, resolution, or rule to change any criminal liability sentence,'' the bill would prevent District policymakers from responding to emerging crime trends by enhancing criminal penalties, or even create new crimes. Swift and certain consequences are essential to deterring crime, and persistent congressional interference is at odds with that goal. Given recent experience, these delays could be extensive, preventing courts from imposing longer sentences while legislation languishes in Congress.
Due to the District's unique status, Congress already has a role to play, particularly in fully funding the federal agencies that are an integral part of our criminal justice system. As we know you are both aware, the Fiscal Year 2024 (FY24) appropriations bill funding the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (PDS) contains a significant error that blocks the agency's access to a portion of its budget. The loss of these funds will force PDS to furlough staff for at least one day each week for the remainder of the fiscal year starting in June, routinely slowing down criminal proceedings. This delay only compounds the difficulties posed by the numerous court vacancies that Congress has failed to fill. PDS is a federal agency outside of our control. We ask Congress to set aside H.R. 7530, and work with us in partnership to ensure that PDS has the funds it needs, and our court system is able to function. Sincerely, Muriel Bowser,
Mayor of the District of Columbia. Phil Mendelson,
Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia. Brian L. Schwalb,
Attorney General for the District of Columbia.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, before I discuss the substance of this bill, I want to discuss democracy and the lack of it in the District of Columbia.
D.C. residents, who have all the obligations of American citizenship, have no voting representation in Congress, and Congress has the ultimate say on local D.C. matters.
While my Republican colleagues are correct that Congress has the constitutional authority to legislate on local D.C. matters, their assertion that Congress has a constitutional duty to do so is simply wrong. Legislating on local D.C. matters is a choice. As the Supreme Court held in 1953, ``there is no constitutional barrier to the delegation by Congress to the District of Columbia of full legislative power.''
D.C.'s local legislature, the council, has 13 members. The members are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how the members vote, they can vote them out of office. That is called democracy.
Congress has 535 voting Members. The Members are elected by residents of their States. None are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how Members vote on local matters, they cannot vote them out of office. That is the antithesis of democracy.
The merits of this bill should be irrelevant, since there is never justification for Congress legislating on local D.C. matters. However, I will discuss the bill.
This bill would be the biggest rollback of D.C.'s self-government in a generation. This bill says the D.C. Council may not ``enact any act, resolution, or rule to change any criminal liability sentence in effect on the date of the enactment of the DC CRIMES Act of 2024.''
This provision, which does not define the term ``criminal liability sentence,'' is as poorly drafted as it is offensive. It takes away D.C.'s authority to increase or decrease statutory criminal penalties. If D.C. wanted to increase penalties for violent crime, it could not do so. This bill could even be construed to prevent D.C. from establishing any new crimes at all.
This bill also reduces the maximum age of eligibility for D.C.'s Youth Rehabilitation Amendment Act of 1985. D.C. is not the only jurisdiction to have such a so-called young adult offender law. Alabama, Florida, Michigan, New York, South Carolina, and Vermont have such laws. The sponsor of this bill is from one of those six States.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the Revolutionary War was fought to give consent to the governed and to end taxation without representation, yet D.C. residents cannot consent to any action taken by Congress and pay full Federal taxes. Indeed, D.C. pays more Federal taxes per capita than any State and more total Federal taxes than 20 States.
If House Republicans cared about democratic principles or D.C. residents, they would bring to the floor my D.C. statehood bill, H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act, which would give D.C. residents voting representation in Congress and full local self-government.
Congress has the constitutional authority to admit the State of Washington, D.C. It simply lacks the will.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source