Expressing support for replacing the term "Thank you for your service" with "Thank you for our freedom".

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 26, the second episode in the new miniseries where the House majority asks the United States Congress to act as a super city council of 535 members to make decisions for the people of Washington, D.C., which is a real city with a real city council and Mayor and which some of my colleagues apparently have never visited or had any real interaction with.

The people in Washington, D.C., want to make their decisions about democratic self-government for themselves. They don't want the Representatives of other Americans to come and make decisions for them.

President Biden was here this week for his great State of the Union Address, and, Mr. Speaker, when you could hear him over the heckling, he talked about the great progress we are making as a nation economically with 12 million new jobs.

In terms of support for Americans in their healthcare with the dramatic reduction in healthcare prescription drug costs, we have cut to $35 a month what people have to spend on their insulin shots if they have diabetes.

We just passed a record investment in climate preparedness to deal with the extreme climate emergency and all of the extreme weather events that people in the United States are experiencing across the country.

That is a national agenda. That is a real national agenda.

Now, my friends across the aisle want to spend this week instead superintending and reviewing the bills that are being passed by the D.C. Council for 713,000 American citizens who live in Washington, D.C.

Yesterday, it was about voting rights. Today, it is about criminal justice reform. I am sure down the road, just as in the past, it is going to be their gun safety laws, and it is going to be their laws allowing for Medicaid funded abortions for poor women. Then they will go after their LGBTQ laws and so on. There will be a parade of attacks on local democratic self-government in Washington, D.C.

Now, I believe that the people of Washington should be treated like all other American citizens. Right now what they have asked for is admission to the Union as a State.

Now, most of the Members of this body represent States that were admitted after the original 13. Thirty-seven States came in afterwards with Congress' exercise of its Article IV powers to admit new States. That was very much the design of the Constitution and the Founders' plan. Go back and read some Thomas Jefferson about that.

We were not set up as a country where certain people would make decisions for other people but people, instead, would be able to govern themselves. In fact, the basis of our attack on British rule over America was our rejecting the idea of virtual representation: that some people could make decisions for other people. No. The whole premise of American democracy is that people make decisions for themselves.

So the 713,000 taxpaying, draftable citizens of Washington, D.C.-- whose population has participated in every war America has ever fought from the point of the American Revolution to the Civil War and all the way up through the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq--those people are asking for admission to the Union.

This House of Representatives in the 117th and the 116th Congresses voted to give it to them. It didn't quite make it through the Senate, which is always slower on these things, but that is the trajectory that the people of D.C. are on.

Instead of trying to join President Biden and all of the great national economic progress, infrastructure progress, and healthcare progress we are making, the House majority decides instead to usurp the role of the D.C. Council and to begin to micromanage their government and finger paint all over their laws. That is what they are doing today.

Now, we don't have time to compare the laws of D.C. with the laws of each of the other States, but I just want my colleagues to be on notice that I have got the laws of the other States, and I can do those direct head-to-head comparisons.

I don't think we should go down this road. I don't think it is a healthy thing for us to be doing as a Congress because we should be respecting the democratic self-government rights of the people of Washington, D.C.

Nobody is more interested in public safety in Washington than the people of Washington.

Nobody is more interested in the processes of democratic self- government in Washington than the people of Washington.

Nobody is more interested in their healthcare policies and in their housing policies than them.

I invite any of my colleagues who have actually been to a meeting of the D.C. Council or their local advisory neighborhood commission to rise and tell us about the experience.

But if they haven't, then they should leave democratic self- government and local self-government of Washington to the people of Washington, D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia says he is in favor of the resolution because he cares about Washington, D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), someone else who cares about Washington, D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have put some stuff on the floor, and I will answer it.

The distinguished gentleman from Georgia invoked a couple of crimes in Washington, D.C., including one in the Metro. He didn't talk about the hundreds of crimes that were committed here at the Capitol, in Congress, in Washington, D.C., because he viewed

the events of January 6 as akin to a ``normal tourist visit.''

Now he dares to lecture the people of Washington, D.C., about keeping Washington, D.C., safe. He seeks to associate Washington, D.C., with crime. Indeed, he and his colleagues constantly try to link images of crime to what they call Democrat-controlled cities.

I did some research last night just to clarify matters. The seven States with the highest murder rates in 2020 all were States that were majority for Donald Trump in the 2020 election. The murder rate in the States that voted for Trump was higher in aggregate than the murder rate in the States that voted for Biden in each year from 2000 to 2020. I invite the gentleman not to lecture the people of Washington, D.C., about crime rates because the murder rate is worse in the red States than it is in the blue States.

Five of the ten cities with the highest murder rate through the first half of last year were in States that voted for Donald Trump in 2020. All those cities have higher murder rates than Washington, D.C. Among the top 10 is a city in the State represented by the sponsor of the disapproval resolution, Mr. Clyde.

Now, the Speaker rose to talk about both yesterday's resolution and today's resolution. He also gave the people of Washington, D.C., a lecture about diluting the vote when he rejects their admission to the Union as a State.

In other words, he is trying to squelch and nullify their statehood drive that would give them real political equality in the country, and then he says the people of Washington, D.C., are diluting the vote. Well, he is blockading the vote. He is preventing the vote for people in Washington, D.C.

Then he joins the chorus denouncing crime in Washington, D.C., which is suddenly of concern to them. I had not heard them mention that before. Well, it turns out that Bakersfield, California, has one of the highest crime rates in America, recently described as one of the top 10 deadliest cities in America for its size, and its crime rate is higher than that of Washington, D.C.

However, we are going to take this opportunity to kick around the people of Washington, D.C. Why? Because they are vulnerable, because they don't have voting representation in the House, and they have no voting representation or voice in the U.S. Senate. That is a scandal from the standpoint of democracy.

Instead of trying to solve that problem, my colleagues, instead, want to use the people of Washington, D.C., as a whipping post, as a pinata, something to kick around. I just think that that is outrageous, and it is wrong.

On January 6, when we were attacked at the Capitol and in this Chamber, there were hundreds of residents of Washington, D.C., who work for the Capitol Police, who work for the Metropolitan Police Department, who work for other police forces who came here to defend us. They came to defend the Congress that they are excluded from. You talk about patriotism, that is patriotism.

These people have a real grievance, a valid grievance, not an imaginary, fake, counterfeit grievance like a Presidential election which they still claim Donald Trump won, even though their arguments were rejected in more than 60 Federal and State courts.

Trump lost that election by more than 7 million votes, 306-232 in the electoral college. I am glad they are nodding over on that side of the aisle because these facts are indisputable, yet, still, they indulge the follies and the fantasies and the pathologies of Donald Trump.

That is what they do instead. They try to kick around the people of Washington, D.C., who defended us as patriots on that day.

There are veterans in Washington, D.C., and we will submit these for the Record, who have demanded their voting rights and demanded admission as a State. Yet, they dare to lecture the people of Washington, D.C., about what to do with their democratic rights.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia has just made a very powerful point, which is that on a whole range of offenses under the newly revised D.C. act that they want to overthrow, the criminal law is tougher in Washington, D.C., than it is in the distinguished chairman's home State of Kentucky.

On carjacking, on first degree murder, on involuntary manslaughter, the people of D.C. have chosen tougher penalties, but the gentlewoman didn't arrive to denounce Kentucky as soft on crime or weak on crime and say the whole United States Congress has to turn itself into a superlegislature for Kentucky and strike their laws down. That is up to the people of Kentucky. They don't even have a carjacking statute. You have to use armed robbery there, which gets you up to 20 years in prison. In the District of Columbia, they have a specific carjacking statute that could get you 24 years in prison.

That is the beauty of the Federal system, which I thought our colleagues supported, the idea that people decide at the local level whether they want tougher laws, as in the District of Columbia, or weaker laws, as in Kentucky. That is up to the people of the States to go offense by offense.

I am afraid that my friend and colleague, Ms. Norton, is taking them a bit too seriously because they are not really interested in scrutinizing the actual criminal justice policy. They just want to kick the people of Washington, D.C., around. They want to lord it over them.

We have President Biden here this week inviting both parties to work together for a continued acceleration of this great economic rebound we are in with 12 million new jobs, with us finally addressing climate change, with us finally getting prescription drug benefits to the people of America. He invited us to participate in a bipartisan national renewal, and what does the majority come back with? They want 535 Members of the United States Congress to act like a super-city council lording over the people of Washington, D.C.

It is unjust and unfair to the people of Washington, and it is beneath our dignity as a democratic Congress to be acting in this way.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If you google carjacking in Kentucky, what will come up is, just a few months ago, two people were carjacked in different incidents at gunpoint in Louisville, which I think is in the State of Kentucky. Since we are talking about State laws, that is what should be relevant. Carjacking is, obviously, a problem across the country.

The conceit of the other side seems to be that they care more about crime and public safety in Washington, D.C., than people who live in Washington, D.C. We just got lectures from two different Members from New York about the terrible conditions in New York. Well, if that is what their concern is, then they should run for the New York State Legislature and change the laws that are involved if they can persuade their fellow citizens that they have it right. If they can't, then maybe they should reconsider what their agenda is.

In any event, if you want to micromanage the laws of Washington, D.C., and rewrite this 275-page act that was passed to revise the criminal code, which they hadn't revised in a century, with the input of Federal and local judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and the D.C. Council, then move to Washington, D.C., and run for D.C. Council.

These resolutions of disapproval come to the House floor without the benefit of a single hearing in the Oversight Committee.

They have not had a hearing where the Members of Congress could be heard on this, where we could have a single witness, where we could have a single fact introduced, much less have the members of the D.C. Council--who sent a letter petitioning for respect for democratic self- government in D.C.--had the right to be heard, much less if the Mayor had the right to be heard.

They keep invoking the name of the Mayor of the District of Columbia who said she does not want Congress to be overturning the laws of the District of Columbia, even if she opposes those laws.

Well, that is a principled position in favor of democratic self- government. I dare say, most of the Members of this body would say even if they disagreed with a law passed by their State legislature in their State and signed by the Governor that Congress should not selectively overturn that law. But that is precisely what they are proposing to do to the people of the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if we were actually to pass this resolution of disapproval against Washington, D.C., at this point, I wonder what my colleagues think we do at that point.

Sitting as the super council for the District of Columbia, would we rewrite the law?

In other words, would we then conduct hearings on each of the offenses that the gentlewoman has just invoked?

Are we going to have hearings about involuntary manslaughter and first degree murder and carjacking and so on in the District of Columbia?

They don't even want to have a hearing on their disapproval resolution, much less do we want to have a hearing on each of these bills and take over the governance of the District of Columbia.

Let's respect the Home Rule Act that was adopted in 1973. Home rule operates here just like it operates in all of our States, which is local matters are decided locally. Let's leave it at that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to correct just a few of the major distortions that we just heard from the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana.

First of all, carjacking, as I understand it from this act, and I am willing to stand corrected, is not legal in the District of Columbia. On the contrary, it could be punished by up to 24 years.

I think the gentleman from Louisiana misunderstood my colloquy with the chairman of the committee because it is in Kentucky where carjacking is not a statutory offense.

If you were to charge the people who were committing carjackings recently in Louisville, you would have to charge them under armed robbery because there is not a carjacking statute.

Washington, D.C., has one, and it has a penalty of up to 24 years, which is more than you could get in Kentucky for armed robbery.

The second point is he said that crime was out of control in Washington, D.C. Well, the crime rate is higher in Bakersfield, California, which is represented by the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

A major city, New Orleans, in the gentleman's home State, in this quote from FOX News ``New Orleans closes 2022 with sky-high homicide rate not seen in decades: `Horrific'.'' New Orleans was given the grim distinction of murder capital of the U.S. in September.

But we don't need to have some kind of race to the bottom Olympics in terms of which State or which city has the worst crime rate.

We should get together to deal with the problem of gun violence, which is why I invite our colleagues to join us and more than 90 percent of the American people who support a universal violent criminal background check, but they oppose it.

They are locked in the stranglehold of the NRA, and they won't back this, despite the fact that all the police unions they cited today about D.C. support a universal violent criminal background check.

Why don't they do something about semiautomatic assault weapons on the streets of our cities and towns across America?

They won't do it. No, they would rather use crime simply as a political club to try to take away other people's democratic rights.

Mr. Speaker, it is scandalous, the way the majority purports to stand up for local self-government and home rule when they want to trample all of the democratic rights of the people of Washington, D.C.

Let's not sit as a super city council of 535 Members doing the municipal minutiae of the people of Washington. Let them govern themselves.

We should be on the pathway to statehood for them, but at the very least, respect their right to home rule. Nobody cares more about public safety in D.C. than the people of D.C.

Nobody cares more about the condition of their communities than the

people who live in them. That is a basic precept of democratic ideals.

I hope my colleagues will respect that, and I hope everyone will vote to reject this continuing series of disapproval resolutions against the people of Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 97, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 26) disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of Representative Clyde's H.J. Res. 26, a resolution disapproving the District of Columbia's Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022.

There is a crime crisis in America's Capital City. According to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, carjackings in the District have increased by 90 percent compared to this time last year. Total property crime is up 31 percent, and homicides are up 29 percent. In fact, D.C. is currently on track to have the most homicides since 1995.

But the radical D.C. Council has chosen to prioritize legislation that will turn this crime crisis into a catastrophe. The D.C. Council's progressive soft-on-crime legislation eliminates almost all the mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for violent crimes, and it drastically reduces the maximum penalties allowable to the courts. These changes further embolden criminals to run rampant throughout the District of Columbia.

The act also grants the right to a jury trial for most misdemeanor offenses. The D.C. court system is already overloaded. This change will burden the D.C. court system even more, reducing the resources devoted to hearing cases for serious felony offenses.

The D.C. Council's legislation is eroding an individual's right to a fair and speedy trial granted them through our Constitution.

All Americans should feel safe in their Capital City, but they don't because of D.C. Democrats' leniency toward criminals at the expense of Americans' safety.

Ensuring public safety and addressing crime is a cornerstone of the House Republicans' policy agenda. In November of last year, Americans voted for a new majority in the House--a new majority that will address crime head-on to ensure a nation that is safe.

This D.C. Council legislation is a brazen rejection of law and order. Ignoring the high rates of criminality in the District and doubling down on leniency for society's violent criminals is a dereliction of duty. This terrible policy will impact anyone who sets foot in the District of Columbia, including residents, the commuting workforce, Federal Government officials, foreign dignitaries, and Americans visiting their Nation's Capital.

If the D.C. Council wants to continue to skirt its responsibility to the people, then they will have to answer to this Congress.

It should be noted that we in Congress are not alone. The D.C. Police Union, representing 3,500 members, and the National Fraternal Order of Police are strongly in favor of H.J. Res. 26 stating in a recent letter to Congress that the D.C. act ``will embolden criminals, dramatically increase crime and violence, and render police officers in the District of Columbia virtually powerless to adequately police the city and keep its residents and visitors safe.''

This resolution is also endorsed by the National Association of Police Organizations representing over 241,000 law enforcement officials across America and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.

Additionally, on January 4, Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser took the extraordinary step of vetoing this legislation, calling the proposals controversial and stating that the act does not make the District of Columbia safer.

Mayor Bowser's bold executive veto sent a strong message that the policy proposals of this bill are simply unworkable and unsafe for the District. There may not be much Mayor Bowser and I have agreed on in the past, but today we are on the same page.

Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to join me in supporting Mr. Clyde's resolution disapproving of the D.C. Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022. We must ensure these terrible criminal code reforms are not put into place.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it appears my Democratic colleagues would rather disregard their statutory responsibility in the Home Rule Act. How convenient to pick and choose when to do their duty.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde) who is the sponsor of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I feel compelled to respond. These resolutions have been called paternalistic. However, the last time Congress passed a joint resolution of disapproval was all the way back in 1990, my senior year in high school--I am 50 years old, Mr. Speaker--over 30 years ago.

Congress does not act upon D.C. legislation unless it is absolutely necessary, and that is what we are faced with today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler).

Mr. Speaker, I am pretty sure we haven't had a carjacking in my congressional district in several years. If someone thought about carjacking a vehicle in my district, it probably wouldn't end well for them. I don't think this has anything to do with this important bill in a city that has been ravaged with crime and carjackings every day.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. D'Esposito).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record four letters of support for this resolution, letters from the D.C. Police Union, National Fraternal Order of Police, National Association of Police Organizations, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.

DC Police Union,

Washington, DC, February 6, 2023.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker McCarthy: I am writing as Chairman of the

Fraternal Order of Police, Metropolitan Police Department

Labor Committee, D.C. Police Union (``D.C. Police Union'')

and on behalf of the nearly 3,500 members of the D.C. Police

Union regarding in support of the disapproval resolution

regarding a dangerous law that the D.C. Council has passed

that will embolden criminals, dramatically increase crime,

and render police officers in the District powerless to

adequately police the City.

On January 17, 2023, the D.C. Council overrode Mayor Muriel

Bowser's veto of the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 (the

``RCCA''). The RCCA eliminates mandatory minimum sentences

for all crimes, drastically reduces the maximum penalties for

crimes such as carjacking, and eliminates accomplice

liability for felony murder. The provisions in this bill will

create lawlessness, prevent police from holding criminals

accountable, and increase the number of officers who leave

the department.

The RCCA Eliminates Mandatory Minimum Sentences and Dramatically

Reduces Statutory Maximum Sentences

The RCCA eliminates all mandatory minimum sentences in the

District and dramatically reduces the statutory maximum

sentence which may be imposed for nearly all crimes. This

reckless legislation brings the District into uncharted and

dangerous territory. Indeed, the Council has conceded that

``no U.S. jurisdiction has entirely eliminated mandatory

minimums.'' Despite this, the Council has persisted in its

irresponsible encouragement of lawlessness in the District.

The RCCA promotes crime by eliminating the certainty of

punishment for offenders through the elimination of mandatory

minimums while simultaneously stripping judges of the ability

to impose a punishment that matches the severity of the

offense through the dramatic reduction in statutory maximums.

Elimination of Accomplice Liability for Felony Murder Prosecutions

Section 22A-2201 of the RRCA eliminates accomplice

liability for felony murder prosecutions in the District.

Accomplice liability for felony murder is critical in

establishing liability across multiple perpetrators when

evidence is otherwise unable to prove which perpetrator

committed the ``lethal act.'' By eliminating accomplice

liability, the RCCA ensures that police and prosecutors will

be unable to hold the most violent and dangerous criminals

accountable.

Reduction in Penalties for Carjacking

The RCCA dramatically decreases the penalties for

carjackings, despite the fact that carjackings have spiked in

the District over the past two years. The RCCA endangers

District residents and encourages lawlessness by reducing the

penalties for carjacking offenses. Doing so also removes a

critical degree of discretion from judges who, previously,

were given proper latitude to craft a punishment that fit the

severity of the crime.

Requirement of MPD Officers to Undergo an Indeterminate Amount of

Extensive Training

The sweeping changes to the criminal code in the RCCA will

require D.C. police officers to receive extensive training

and learn and entirely new criminal code in the District. The

extensive retraining and overtime that will be required comes

at a time when the number of officers in the District is at

historical lows as a result of anti-police legislation passed

by the Council. The RCCA will undoubtedly take a further toll

of D.C. police officers and accelerate the current exodus of

officers from the District.

This anti-police, pro-crime law will create a mass exodus

of police officers from the District and will unquestionably

make the District of Columbia more dangerous for citizens who

live in the District, individuals who work in the District,

and tourists that travel to the District. As a result, the

D.C. Police Union strongly urges the House Oversight and

Accountability Committee to take all action necessary to

prevent this reckless legislation from becoming law.

Respectfully,

Greggory Pemberton,

Chairman, D.C. Police Union.

The D.C. Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 is irresponsible. It is dangerous. It is playing with the livelihoods of all who live in or visit D.C. by gutting the local justice system and allowing emboldened criminals to remain on the streets.

This Congress must swiftly exercise its constitutional role concerning the District of Columbia and reject this misguided legislation from going into effect.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to unite in support of law and order and support this necessary resolution of disapproval.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Comer, for yielding.

It is no secret that crime has beleaguered Washington, D.C., for years. Yet, in the midst of rising crime rates in D.C., our Nation's Capital is now on track to become even more dangerous.

The D.C. Council is advancing a severely misguided bill, the Revised Criminal Code Act, to eliminate minimum sentences and reduce maximum penalties for numerous violent criminal offenses.

This legislation isn't just reckless. It is radical. Washington's own Democratic Mayor Bowser vetoed the legislation telling the council: ``This bill does not make us safer.''

Well, for once, I agree with the Mayor because eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for all crimes except first-degree murder, eliminating life sentences, and reducing maximum penalties for violent crimes including burglary, carjacking, and robberies will undoubtedly embolden criminals and threaten the safety of both residents and visitors here in Washington, D.C.

But ultimately, the D.C. Council ignored Mayor Bowser's valid concerns and overrode her veto.

Many have asked why, as a Congressman from northeast Georgia, I am leading the effort to block the D.C. Council's radical rewrite of Washington's criminal code.

It is because I care, and I would expect and hope that everyone here in this Chamber would care, too. Congress has the responsibility and the authority to take this action.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to ``exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such District.''

But we don't just have a constitutional obligation to stop this soft- on-crime bill from becoming law, we also have a moral obligation to protect America's safety and security in our Nation's Capital City.

Just 2 days ago in his State of the Union Address, President Biden said right here in this very Chamber: ``We have an obligation to make sure all our people are safe,'' and adding: ``Public safety depends on public trust.''

For once, I agree with the President because all Americans deserve to visit our Nation's Capital without facing fear or violence, and all Americans should be able to trust public officials to implement policies that protect their safety and well-being.

Yet, under the D.C. Council's radical crime bill, residents, small businesses, constituents, and our own staff here on Capitol Hill will inevitably encounter additional danger and violence.

As the President delivered his State of the Union Address on Tuesday night, there was a shooting blocks away in the Navy Yard and a stabbing over in Georgetown.

Earlier this week on Capitol Hill, a Capitol Hill reporter's wheels were stolen right off his car. The same crime happened to one of my Democrat colleagues, Congresswoman Barragan, last month.

Just last week at the Potomac Avenue Metro station, a crazed criminal shot and killed a 64-year-old Metro mechanic, Robert Cunningham, who heroically attempted to stop the violent criminal from shooting a woman nearby.

Clearly, crime after crime is on the rise here in D.C., yet the D.C. Council's bill will only make matters worse.

Combating crime is not a conservative or a liberal objective. It is not Republican or Democrat. It is simply a commonsense one. In fact, it has been my honor to work with a local Democrat, Denise Krepp, who formerly served as an Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner here in D.C. For years Ms. Krepp pleaded with Democrats to be tough on crime for the sake of the residents she served, yet she was routinely ignored.

In a letter sent to this very body in December--which I shall include in the Record--she urged Congress to introduce a resolution of disapproval to block the D.C. Council's Revised Criminal Code Act. It is an effort I am honored to lead and an effort that I am proud the House will pass today.

Because we must send a clear message to the Senate, to the White House, and to the American people that the people's House rejects soft- on-crime policies that jeopardize Americans' safety and security, I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yea'' on my commonsense resolution, H.J. Res. 26.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the December 12, 2022, letter from Ms. Krepp.

December 12, 2022.

Re. B24-0416--Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022.

Rep. Pelosi,

Washington, DC.

Rep. McCarthy,

Washington, DC.

Senator Schumer,

Washington, DC.

Senator McConnell,

Washington, DC.

Representative Pelosi, Representative McCarthy, Senator

Schumer, and Senator McConnell: My name is K. Denise Rucker

Krepp and I'm an Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner in

Washington, D.C. I'm writing to you today to ask that you

enact into law a joint resolution disapproving the Revised

Criminal Code Act of 2022 (RCCA). The bill hurts victims of

violent crime.

Currently, convicted rapists must serve their full prison

sentence. The RCCA creates a new right to petition for early

release from prison. The D.C. Councilmembers who drafted this

provision call it proportionate, balancing the interests of

victims and those who commit the crimes.

Rape is an irreversible crime. Victims don't get to rewind

the clock and as a locally elected D.C. official I

respectfully ask that you disapprove the bill, stopping it

from becoming law.

Additionally, I respectfully ask that you conduct oversight

over prosecutions of violent crimes occurring in Washington,

D.C. At a March 2022 meeting, the U.S. Attorney for the

District of Columbia told me that he didn't know what crimes

his office prosecutes each year and that it is unreasonable

for me to expect him to know this information.

I've been a locally unpaid, no staff elected official in

Washington, D.C. for eight years. Over this period of time,

I've tracked the murders, armed carjackings, assaults,

robberies, stabbings, shootings, and rape that have occurred

in my single member district. The U.S. Attorney for the

District of Columbia has staff and resources, and it's

reasonable for him to know what crimes his office

prosecutes. Please ask him to do so and to share this

information with you and DC residents.

Thank you.

K. Denise Rucker Krepp,

ANC6B10 Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Kentucky, the chairman of the Oversight Committee, for yielding.

I also thank Congressman Clyde for bringing H.J. Res. 26, the bill to address this serious problem of crime.

You have been hearing this debate on the floor. I am sure people watching at

home are watching in amazement that this is not a unanimous discussion, that we are not all standing up here on the House floor deploring the crime that is out of control in the District of Columbia.

We have seen it in so many communities around America. You see it in so many big cities--pretty much all run by Democrats, I will point out--where crime is out of control after they have dropped penalties for criminals, where they have defunded the police, this massive shift against law enforcement, against keeping communities safe. You would think we would all be in agreement on that.

The fact is that in D.C., sexual abuse is up 157 percent. You would think you would hear the other side joining us in speaking out against that, not trying to defend laws that make it easier to get criminals out of jail.

Motor vehicle theft up 88 percent. Total property crime up 31 percent. Homicides increased 22 percent.

We see stories of carjackings every day, and what did the D.C. Council do?

They passed a resolution to get rid of mandatory minimums on many violent crimes.

This isn't some petty crime we are talking about. We are talking about violent crimes. Armed carjackings. The mandatory minimum used to be 15 years for an armed carjacking; dropped to zero. Not a day.

You can hold somebody up at gunpoint and take their car from them, and you could literally walk out of jail the next day without serving a day in prison, and you wonder why crime is out of control. The D.C. Mayor vetoed the ordinance; the council overrode it.

Now, you hear a lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talking about why is Congress even doing this?

Well, you know, Mr. Speaker, just the other day, we actually spent a day reading the entire United States Constitution on the House floor.

Maybe my Democrat colleagues didn't listen to that discussion. Maybe they haven't read the United States Constitution in a long time, but I will break the copy out. It is easy to read.

Article I, Section 8 talks about the District of Columbia. It says, ``Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District. . . .''

Yes. Congress is given the exclusive right to legislate in all cases dealing with the District of Columbia.

You can talk about debates that go on in statehouses. The District of Columbia is not a State for a lot of reasons.

Our Founding Fathers actually wanted a Capitol of the United States that wasn't part of a State. There is a lot of debate about why that happened.

In fact, this land that we are standing on right now used to be part of a State. The State is called Maryland. It is still there.

Maryland gave land to the United States because our Nation decided we wanted the Capitol to be in a place that is not tied to the other States, that is just the home of the Nation's Capital.

It gave Congress in the Constitution the authority to get involved in these kinds of issues.

It doesn't happen often, but my God, if we can't come together with crime out of control, with people being killed, with criminals being let out the next day after violent crimes are committed, and mandatory minimums are dropped from 15 years to zero, if you hold a gun to somebody's head and carjack them, that is why we are coming together, to take a stand.

Everybody can vote. If they are okay with letting the carjackers walk scot-free, they will have that opportunity.

Don't count me in that number. I would say don't count the people that live in the District of Columbia, living in fear of crime. They don't want that crime.

The millions of people that come as tourists to visit our Nation's Capital should not live in fear of that violent crime every day because criminals get to walk free.

How is the governance determined?

They allow people that are here illegally to vote in D.C.

We have another bill that we are bringing up to say that people here illegally cannot vote in D.C. elections.

It is bizarre, listening to the debate on the other side that wants to defend that ability for illegals. We went and verified. There is not even an exception for foreign nationals.

So people that work at the Chinese Embassy, we saw how they respect our laws in the United States. They flew a spy balloon over most of the sensitive military bases of our Nation last week.

Yet, people that work at the Chinese Embassy are Chinese citizens and can vote in D.C. elections. There is a piece of legislation that repeals that, as well.

Obviously, there are some in this Chamber who want to defend the right for people here illegally, including people that work for the CCP that are Chinese nationals, that are Russian nationals, they want them to be able to vote in D.C. elections.

Enough is enough. We are exercising our constitutional right to say no to this madness. Let's restore law and order. Let's stand up for law and order and the people of the District of Columbia and all the millions of people who come to visit this Nation's Capital who don't want to live in fear, who don't think that the carjackers should be able to walk scot-free if they pull out a gun and put it to somebody's head to take their car or to break into their house or to do so many other violent things that are causing fear through our communities.

We can do something about this. We ought to do this. We ought to pass both of these pieces of legislation. I urge passage.

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.''

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.

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

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.