District of Columbia Cash Bail Reform Act of 2025

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill which amends the District of Columbia's pretrial release and detention law.

Last year, violent crime in D.C. was down 35 percent, reaching an over-30-year low. This year, violent crime in D.C. is down 28 percent compared to the same period last year.

I suspect most of my Republican colleagues do not know that D.C.'s longstanding pretrial release and detention law is substantially the same as the longstanding Federal pretrial release and detention law, or that the same well-respected Federal agency provides pretrial services for both the local and Federal trial courts in D.C.

This bill requires, in the case of certain crimes, pretrial detention based solely on a charge and financial conditions for pretrial release. However, mandatory pretrial detention based solely on a charge is unconstitutional and financial conditions for pretrial release criminalize poverty.

Neither D.C. nor Federal law requires pretrial detention or financial conditions for pretrial release, but both laws permit each. Under both D.C. and Federal law, pretrial release and detention are based on a judge's assessment of a defendant's risk of not appearing in court and danger to the community. In contrast, 18 States, the majority of which are red States, have a constitutional right to bail, meaning, except in capital cases, a defendant cannot be detained pretrial based solely on flight risk or dangerousness.

Pretrial detention is a severe restriction on the liberty of an individual who is presumed innocent. This bill requires detention for the period before trial based solely on a charge, with no adversary hearing. That is unconstitutional. The Due Process Clause of the Constitution requires an adversary hearing to detain a defendant for the period before trial.

In 1987, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Federal pretrial release and detention law. In its ruling, the Court stressed the law's procedural protections for defendants.

Chief Justice Rehnquist said:

In our society liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception. We hold that the provisions for pretrial detention in the Bail Reform Act of 1984 fall within that carefully limited exception. The act authorizes the detention prior to trial of arrestees charged with serious felonies who are found after an adversary hearing to pose a threat to the safety of individuals or to the community which no condition of release can dispel. The numerous procedural safeguards detailed above must attend this adversary hearing.

Studies show that whether a jurisdiction requires financial conditions for pretrial release has no effect on the crime rates of that jurisdiction. Instead, even small financial conditions for pretrial release often force poor defendants to remain in jail, which can cost them their jobs and housing and leads to more convictions and longer sentences.

The over 700,000 D.C. residents, the majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable and worthy of governing themselves. If residents do not like how the D.C.'s local legislature votes, residents can vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure. That is called democracy.

If D.C. residents do not like how the Members of Congress vote on local D.C. matters, residents cannot vote them out of office. That is the antithesis of democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters opposing this bill from the D.C. Mayor, the entire D.C. Council, and the D.C. Attorney General, all of whom were elected by D.C. residents. September 10, 2025. Hon. James Comer, Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC. Hon. Robert Garcia, Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Garcia: As Mayor and Chief Executive Officer of the District of Columbia, I am proud of the work we have accomplished to invest in our people, strengthen our neighborhoods, and drive down crime. Building on this progress, my Administration established the Safe and Beautiful Emergency Operations Center to coordinate public safety and beautification efforts as the presidential emergency declaration ends. This structure ensures that DC will remain proactive--bringing together local and federal partners to sustain momentum on reducing crime and improving quality of life for every resident.

We have worked collaboratively with this Committee on shared priorities, including public safety, the federal Return to Work, implementing a DC budget Fiscal Year 2025 fix (which is still pending in the House) and revitalizing the RFK campus; but I write now to ask you to reject 13 of the DC bills before you today that encroach on DC's Home Rule:

Bills like H.R. 5183, the District of Columbia Home Rule Improvement Act, make the District less efficient, competitive, and responsive to the needs of a highly complex unique local government that serves local, county and state functions. Bogging down legislative and executive action only adds costs and uncertainty, making it more difficult to handle the economic headwinds and growth opportunities ahead.

Bills like H.R. 5214, the District of Columbia Cash Bail Reform Act, make DC less safe. Replacing our very effective pre-trial detention regime, which focuses on charged violent offenses and repeat violent offenders, not just on cash bail. I credit recent changes to our laws related to pre-trial detention for helping to drive down violent crime in the last two years.

And the bills to abolish the Judicial Nominations Commission and to convert the elected DC Attorney General to a Presidentially appointed legal officer for the District are both less democratic and untenable for District operations. The Judicial Nomination Commission, with seven members appointed by the Mayor, DC Council, President, U.S. District Court for DC, and the DC Bar, works. As recently as last month, President Trump nominated three federal judicial nominees who were selected from the Commission's candidate pool--a process that demonstrates the value of maintaining local input. DC residents also voted to elect an Attorney General who represents the public interest. Changes to these charter agencies would significantly undercut the already thin ties to autonomy that limited home rule provides.

Finally, I urge you not to upend our three-part education funding SOAR Act. I have long supported the program to expand opportunity for DC students. However, my support has always been contingent on parity among all three education sectors-- public, private, and charter--and this approach is working. We will not support changes that tip the scales away from this core principle of fairness for DC families. As the fastest improving urban school system, DC has become a model for urban education. We outpace the national average on all tested subject areas. We boast free, full-day pre-K access serving more than 13,200 young learners--an investment which supports our children and our workforce. DC ranked top of the nation in parental satisfaction regarding school choice. Mayoral control, council oversight, and deep, targeted investments in our students, teachers, and buildings made these remarkable achievements possible.

I look forward to continuing a productive partnership with the Committee--one that respects the will of DC residents and honors the principles of home rule. Together, we can build on our successes while protecting the autonomy that, as history reflects, has made our city stronger. Sincerely, Muriel Bowser, Mayor. ____ Council of the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, September 8, 2025. Hon. James Comer, Chair, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC. Hon. Robert Garcia, Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Garcia: The Council of the District of Columbia is aware that the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is planning to mark up more than a dozen proposed measures that would severely and negatively impact the operations, public safety, and autonomy of the District of Columbia. We ask that you oppose these measures in full, save one, H.R. 2693, District of Columbia Electronic Transmittal of Legislation Act. While we have not seen the final text of this legislation, the public summary of H.R. 2693 is consistent with the long held request by the District of Columbia to allow the ability to electronically transfer legislative acts to Congress, rather than only allowing physical copies be transferred. The challenge and barriers created by this current requirement were clearly exposed during both the recent COVID pandemic restrictions as well as the Capitol campus restrictions following the January 6, 2021 attacks on the Capitol.

The other 13 measures that have been shared with us would do direct and serious harm to the District of Columbia and we urge you to reject these measures completely. These bills represent an unprecedented attack on the autonomy and home rule of our local government and the more than 700,000 Americans that call it home. The breadth of these bills is remarkable, and if passed, would result in an erosion of accountability and public safety for the District of Columbia. They range from eliminating and replacing our elected and accountable Attorney General for the District of Columbia with a President's hand-picked and unaccountable associate requiring no confirmation by the U.S. Senate and no local ties, to a full repeal of multiple local DC laws that have been in place for many years, if not decades, that are tested, proven, and effective components of our public safety infrastructure and ecosystem. The effect of these Congressional repeals would put our legal and Court system into chaos and directly undermine successful tools that focus on serious accountability and effective rehabilitation when a crime occurs. As always, when revisions or amendments to DC laws are necessary, those changes should only take place within our local legislature which has the best capacity to provide effective oversight and accountable actions for the residents of the District of Columbia.

We respectfully request that all members of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and all members of Congress, reject these harmful measures whether in committee mark up or before the full House of Representatives. Given the breadth of the multiple measures before you, we also request an opportunity to provide a more in-depth discussion of each bill before the Committee's mark-up, especially in light that the Committee will not hold public hearings on these measures. Sincerely,

Chairman Phil Mendelson; Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie, At- Large; Councilmember Anita Bonds, At-Large; Councilmember Christina Henderson, At-Large; Councilmember Robert White, Jr., At-Large; Councilmember Brianne Nadeau, Ward 1; Councilmember Brooke Pinto, Ward 2; Councilmember Matthew Frumin, Ward 3; Councilmember Janeese Lewis George, Ward 4; Councilmember Zachary Parker, Ward 5; Councilmember Charles Allen, Ward 6; Councilmember Wendell Felder, Ward 7; Councilmember Trayon White, Sr, Ward 8. ____ Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the Attorney General, Washington, DC, September 9, 2025. Hon. James Comer, Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC. Hon. Robert Garcia, Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Garcia: The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is scheduled to markup fourteen bills tomorrow related to the operations of the District of Columbia. With the exception of H.R. 2693, the District of Columbia Electronic Transmittal Act, I write in strong opposition to these bills. They address inherently local issues and laws that were passed after careful consideration by the District's elected representatives, who are directly accountable to District residents. Members of this very Committee have long advocated for the principles of federalism on which this nation was founded. They have consistently condemned federal overreach and fought forcefully and convincingly for the uniquely American values of local control, freedom, and self-governance. These principles should apply to the more than 700,000 people who call Washington, DC home, just as they do for your constituents across the country.

I specifically want to call attention to the significant incursion on local self-governance reflected in two bills, the District of Columbia Attorney General Appointment Reform Act and the District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Reform Act. Both laws would displace the ability of District residents to have a voice in the selection of local leaders who wield significant power over local judicial matters: the judges on our local courts and the Attorney General for the District. The judges on the DC Court of Appeals and DC Superior Court rule on inherently local matters such as criminal prosecutions, landlord-tenant cases, probate proceedings, civil cases, and divorce proceedings, all of which have profoundly important impact on our community. For more than 50 years, the Judicial Nomination Commission (JNC) has successfully allowed DC residents to have a voice in judicial appointments, while also granting the President and Senate a role in confirming our judges. I urge the Committee not to overturn that well-established process.

The DC Attorney General, as the District's chief law officer, is also responsible for local legal issues, namely, protecting the District and its residents in a wide range of matters, such as enforcing child support laws, handling abuse and neglect proceedings in the child welfare system, enforcing our housing code, and defending District agencies and officers when they are sued. In no other place in the United States are such local issues determined by a federally appointed person with no local accountability. The proposed legislation would be especially undemocratic in light of the fact that, in 2010, an overwhelming majority of District voters (76%) exercised their right to amend the District Charter to make the DC Attorney General an independent, elected office, rather than a position appointed by and subordinate to the Mayor. With that vote, District residents clearly expressed their desire that the Attorney General should be independent and accountable to them. The pending bill would displace that choice in favor of installing an Attorney General accountable not to District residents, but to the President. Given that the U.S. Attorney for the District is already appointed by the President, if passed, this bill would concentrate all criminal and civil litigation authority in the President, divesting the District and its residents of any local control over these essential functions.

No one knows or cares more about keeping DC safe than DC residents who work, live and raise their families here. Our democratically elected officials work closely with local law enforcement, policy experts, and community leadership to pass laws that are in the best interests of all Washingtonians. Substituting the will of DC voters with the whim of federal politicians is undemocratic and un-American.

I urge you to reject these measures and uphold the values Congress sought to advance more than 50 years ago when it passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act: that District residents should enjoy the ``powers of local self- government'' that all other Americans enjoy. See DC Code Sec. 1-201.02. Respectfully submitted, Brian L. Schwalb, Attorney General for the District of Columbia.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this undemocratic and paternalistic bill. It is long past time for Congress to pass the D.C. statehood bill. Free D.C.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source