Common-Sense Law Enforcement and Accountability Now in DC Act of 2025

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill, which repeals the police accountability and transparency law that the District of Columbia enacted in 2023.

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.

D.C.'s Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act, among other things, gave the police chief more authority to discipline officers for serious misconduct and crimes; strengthened civilian oversight of the police department; improved public access to body-worn camera video; and imposed limitations on the purchase of military weapons and the use of force. D.C. police chiefs have requested more authority to discipline officers for at least 25 years before enactment of this law. This bill would take away this authority from the police chief.

The difficulty D.C. has had recruiting and retaining police officers is not unique. It is a nationwide issue that predates the police accountability and transparency laws enacted across the country after the murder of George Floyd. In 2019, before the murder of George Floyd, the International Association of Chiefs of Police conducted a survey that found ``The challenge of recruiting law enforcement is widespread and affects agencies of all types, sizes, and locations across the United States.''

``The difficulty of recruiting law enforcement officers and employees is not due to one particular cause. Rather, multiple social, political, and economic forces are all simultaneously at play.''

In 1973, Congress passed the D.C. Home Rule Act, which established locally elected chief executive officer and legislature. The purpose of the Home Rule Act is to ``grant to inhabitants of the District of Columbia powers of local government'' and ``relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially local District matters,'' yet the House today is denying D.C. residents local self-government and spending its time on local D.C. matters.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my Republican colleagues what Republican President Richard Nixon said when he signed the Home Rule Act: ``One of the major goals of this administration is to place responsibility for local functions under local control and to provide local governments with the authority and resources they need to serve their communities effectively. The measure I sign today represents a significant step in achieving this goal in the city of Washington. It will give the people of the District of Columbia the right to elect their own city officials and to govern themselves in local affairs.

``As the Nation approaches the 200th anniversary of its founding, it is particularly appropriate to assure those persons who live in our Capital City rights and privileges which have long been enjoyed by most of their countrymen.''

The over 700,000 D.C. residents, the majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable and worthy of governing themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters opposing this bill from the D.C. Mayor, from the 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, US 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 up end our three-pall 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.

Mr. Speaker, D.C. residents have all the obligations of American citizenship, including paying Federal taxes, serving on juries, and registering with the Selective Service, yet Congress denies them full local self-government and voting representation in Congress.

The only solution to this undemocratic treatment is to grant D.C. statehood.

I include in the Record a letter from leading constitutional scholars explaining why the D.C. statehood bill is constitutional.

May 22, 2021.

Re Washington, D.C. Admission Act, H.R. 51 and S. 51 (the

``D.C. Admission Act'').

Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Charles E. Schumer,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Kevin O. McCarthy,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressional Leaders: As scholars of the United

States Constitution, we write to correct claims that the D.C.

Admission Act is vulnerable to a constitutional challenge in

the courts. For the reasons set forth below, there is no

constitutional barrier to the State of Washington, Douglass

Commonwealth (the ``Commonwealth'') entering the Union

through a congressional joint resolution, pursuant to the

Constitution's Admissions Clause, just like the 37 other

states that have been admitted since the Constitution was

adopted. Furthermore, Congress's exercise of its express

constitutional authority to decide to admit a new state is a

classic political question, which courts are highly unlikely

to interfere with, let alone attempt to bar.

The D.C. Admission Act. The House passed the Act, as H.R.

51, on April 22, 2021, and as of this writing, the

substantively identical companion bill (S. 51) is under

consideration by the Senate. The Act provides for the

issuance of a congressional joint resolution declaring the

admittance as a State of most of the territory currently

comprising the District of Columbia, while the seat of

government (defined as the ``Capital'') will fall

outside of the boundaries of the new State and remain under

federal jurisdiction. The Act also repeals the provision of

federal law that establishes the current mechanism for

District residents to participate in presidential elections,

pursuant to Congress's authority under the Twenty-Third

Amendment; and provides for expedited consideration of the

repeal of that Amendment.

The Admissions Clause grants Congress constitutional

authority to admit the Commonwealth into the Union. The

starting point for a constitutional analysis of the Act is

the Constitution's Admissions Clause (Art. IV, Sect. 3),

which provides that ``New States may be admitted by the

Congress into this Union.'' The Clause ``vests in Congress

the essential and discretionary authority to admit new states

into the Union by whatever means it considers appropriate as

long as such means are framed within its vested powers.''

Every State admitted into the Union since the Constitution

was adopted has been admitted by congressional action

pursuant to this Clause; no State has been admitted pursuant

to a constitutional amendment.

The Supreme Court has broadly construed Congress's assigned

power to admit new states and has never interfered with

Congress's admission of a state, even when potentially

legitimate constitutional objections existed. For example, in

1863, Congress admitted into the Union West Virginia, which

had been part of the State of Virginia, in potential

violation of a provision of the Admissions Clause that bars

the formation of a new State out of a portion of the

territory of another State without the consent of the ceding

State. The Supreme Court, however, did not bar West

Virginia's admission; to the contrary, it later tacitly

approved of it.

Some critics of the D.C. Admission Act have suggested that

Maryland's consent might be required under the foregoing

provision of the Admissions Clause. This objection mistakenly

presupposes that Maryland retains a reversionary interest in

the territory currently composing the District of Columbia,

which Maryland ceded to the federal government when the

District was established in 1791. In fact, Maryland expressly

relinquished all sovereign authority over the territory at

issue when the federal government accepted it. The express

terms of the cession state that the territory was ``for ever

ceded and relinquished to the congress and government of the

United States, in full and absolute right, and exclusive

jurisdiction . . . .'' As Viet D. Dinh, who served as an

Assistant Attorney General during the presidency of George W.

Bush, has explained, because Maryland's cession of the

territory now constituting the District was full and

complete, it severed D.C. residents' now far distant

``political link with'' Maryland. The current District is not

part of Maryland, and Maryland has no claim on any portion of

the District's territory. There is accordingly no basis to

require Maryland's consent for the establishment of the new

State.

The Constitution's District Clause poses no barrier to

admitting the Commonwealth into the Union. The Constitution's

District Clause grants Congress power to ``exercise exclusive

Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not

exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular

States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of

the Government of the United States.'' Based on this Clause,

Congress established the current District of Columbia, which

(as explained) was taken from territory ceded by Maryland, as

well as Virginia.

The D.C. Admission Act complies with the District Clause

because it provides that the Capital--which is defined in the

Act to include (among other things) the White House, the

Capitol Building, the United States Supreme Court Building,

and the Federal executive, legislative, and judicial office

buildings located adjacent to the Mall--will not become part

of the new State and will remain under the sovereignty of the

federal government.

Some critics have argued that the District Clause somehow

mandates that the District of Columbia permanently retain all

of its current territory, and that its size may neither be

increased or reduced by Congress. The plain language of the

District Clause says no such thing; it does not mandate that

the District be any size or shape, except it limits the

maximum size of the federal enclave to ten square miles.

Historical practice confirms that Congress can change the

size of the District. In 1791, Congress altered the

District's southern boundary to encompass portions of what

are now Alexandria, Virginia and Anacostia. Then, in 1846,

Congress retroceded Alexandria and its environs back to

Virginia. As a result, the territory composing the District

was reduced by a third.

At the time of the 1846 retrocession, the House's Committee

on the District of Columbia considered, and rejected, the

very argument that critics of the D.C. Admission Act are

raising today, reasoning that the ``true construction of [the

District Clause] would seem to be solely that Congress retain

and exercise exclusive jurisdiction'' over territory

comprising the ``seat of government.'' The language of the

District Clause, the legislators observed, places no mandate

on the size, or even the location, of that seat of

government, other than preventing the government from

``hold[ing] more than ten miles for this purpose.'' The

House's judgment was correct in 1846, and remains so today.

The Twenty-Third Amendment does not prevent Congress from

granting the Commonwealth statehood. Opponents of statehood

have suggested that the Twenty-Third Amendment bars Congress

from exercising its constitutionally enumerated authority to

grant statehood to the Commonwealth. In fact, the Amendment

poses no barrier to the admission of the Commonwealth into

the Union through an act of Congress, in accordance with the

plain language of the Admissions Clause, just as Congress has

done in connection with the admission of several other

States, including most recently Alaska and Hawaii.

Section 1 of the Twenty-Third Amendment, which was ratified

in 1961, provides:

The District constituting the seat of Government of the

United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress

may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice

President equal to the whole number of Senators and

Representatives in Congress to which the District would be

entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the

least populous State; they shall be in addition to those

appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for

the purposes of the election of President and Vice President,

to be electors appointed by a State.

By its plain terms, the Amendment poses no barrier to

Congress's admission of the Commonwealth into the Union.

Indeed, it is entirely silent on the matter.

The only question raised by the existence of the Twenty-

Third Amendment is a practical, not a constitutional one: How

best to address the Twenty-Third Amendment's provision for

the assignment of presidential electors to what will become a

vestigial seat of government, with virtually no residents?

The Act satisfactorily addresses this question by providing

for the repeal of the provision of federal law that

establishes the current mechanism for District residents to

participate in presidential elections, pursuant to Congress's

authority under the Twenty-Third Amendment, as well as by

commencing the process for repealing the Amendment itself.

Initially, the Act provides for an expedited process for

repeal of the Twenty-Third Amendment, a process that should

move forward to ratification swiftly and successfully once

the Commonwealth is admitted as a State. None of the other 50

States has reason to seek to retain three electors for a

largely unoccupied seat of government.

But the Act also addresses the possibility that the Twenty-

Third Amendment is not promptly repealed by mandating the

immediate repeal of the provision of federal law that

provides the current mechanism for District residents to

participate in federal elections.

In 1961, following the adoption of the Twenty-Third

Amendment, Congress exercised its enforcement authority by

enacting legislation (codified at 3 U.S.C. Sec. 21),

providing that the District residents may select presidential

electors; the votes of the electors are currently awarded to

the ticket prevailing in the District's presidential

election.

The existing statutes fall within the broad authority

granted to Congress by the Twenty-Third Amendment to define

the terms of, and effectuate, the District's participation in

presidential elections. The Amendment allows for the

appointment of a number of Electors ``in such manner as the

Congress may direct.'' The Amendment also allows Congress to

select the number of Electors the District may receive,

subject only to a maximum: The District may participate in

the presidential Electoral College through the appointment of

no more electors than those of the smallest State, i.e.,

three. And section 2 of the Amendment grants Congress the

power to ``enforce'' the provision ``by appropriate

legislation,'' as it did in 1961.

But once Congress acts again, pursuant to its express grant

of constitutional authority, and repeals the legislation that

creates the existing procedure for District residents to

select presidential electors, that will remove the

legislative provision providing for the District's

participation in presidential elections. Without such a

provision, there is no mechanism for identifying the Capital

area's electors or allocating their votes.

Some scholars have questioned whether that approach is

satisfactory. They contend that the Twenty-Third Amendment is

self-enforcing, and effectively mandates the appointment of

electors on behalf of the District of Columbia, regardless of

whether such appointment is called for under a federal

statute. Some of us disagree; indeed, the very existence of

Section 2 of the Amendment makes clear that enabling

legislation is required to effectuate the District's

participation in the presidential election process. And

Congress's 1961 enforcement legislation supports this

interpretation.

Even if this self-enforcement argument were to be accepted,

however, Congress could easily address it by replacing the

current law mandating that the Capital area's electors vote

in accordance with the outcome of the popular vote in the

District with a new legislative mandate that the Capital

area's electors vote in other ways. For example, Congress

could require District electors to vote in favor of the

presidential ticket that receives the most Electoral College

votes (of the remaining 538 electors). Or, alternatively,

Congress could require that District electors vote for the

winner of the national popular vote winner.

A recent Supreme Court decision confirms that a legislative

directive to the Capital

area's electors would be enforceable. The Twenty-Third

Amendment provides that the District ``shall appoint''

electors ``in such manner as Congress may direct''; this

language is a direct parallel to the Constitution's grant of

broad authority to each of the States to appoint and instruct

their respective electors. In its recent decision in Chiafalo

v. Washington, the Supreme Court held that electors do not

have discretion to decide how to cast their Electoral College

votes, but rather are legally bound to follow the

instructions given by their respective states.

As Columbia Law School Professors Jessica Bulman-Pozen and

Olatunde Johnson have observed, it follows from the Court's

holding in Chiafalo that Congress could legally bind any

electors to vote in accordance with the overall vote of the

Electoral College or the national popular vote, just as the

existing enabling statute currently binds them to vote in the

Electoral College in accordance with the outcome of the

popular vote in the District.

In sum, none of the critics' constitutional objections to

the D.C. Admission Act are meritorious; and the contention

that a constitutional amendment is required to admit the

Commonwealth into the Union is incorrect. The D.C. Admission

Act calls for a proper exercise of Congress' express

authority under the Constitution to admit new states, a power

that it has exercised 37 other times since the Constitution

was adopted.

Courts are unlikely to second-guess Congress's exercise of

its constitutional authority to admit the Commonwealth into

the Union. Apart from the fact that the legal objections to

admission of the Commonwealth as a State are without merit,

it is also unlikely that the courts will ever consider those

objections. As Mr. Dinh has observed, the decision whether to

admit a state into the Union is a paradigmatic political

question that the Constitution expressly and exclusively

assigns to Congress. The Supreme Court has long, and

strenuously, avoided adjudicating disputes respecting matters

that the Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the

coordinate, elected branches.

The remaining objections to Statehood do not concern

applicable constitutional law, but rather matters of policy.

For example, some have argued that the District should not

be admitted to the Union because it is a single city and have

instead proposed that most of the District's territory be

retrocessioned to Maryland. There is, however, no

constitutional barrier to a large, diverse city, with a

population comparable to that of several existing States,

joining the Union. Furthermore, the Maryland retrocession

proposal is subject to many of the same supposed

constitutional objections raised by those who object to

statehood for the District. For example, retroceding the

District to Maryland would decrease the size of the remaining

federal enclave, which objectors to District Statehood have

claimed is constitutionally impermissible. A forced merger of

the District and Maryland would also do nothing to address

the purported constitutional objection to leaving the

residual seat of government with three potential electors,

pursuant to the turns of the Twenty-Third Amendment, prior to

the Amendment's repeal.

Opponents also argue that Congress should not grant the

District statehood because it will lead to a lawsuit. But any

court challenge will be without merit, and indeed likely will

be dismissed as presenting a political question. We

respectfully submit that Congress should not avoid exercising

its express constitutional authority to admit the

Commonwealth into the Union because of meritless threats of

litigation.

Sincerely yours,

Caroline Fredrickson, Georgetown University Law Center;

Erwin Chemerinsky, University of California, Berkeley School

of Law; Stephen I. Vladeck, University of Texas Law School;

Franita Tolson, University of Southern California, Gould

School of Law; Jessica Bulman-Pozen, Columbia Law School;

Leah Litman, University of Michigan Law School; Laurence H.

Tribe, Harvard Law School; Paul Smith, Georgetown University

Law Center; Geoffrey R. Stone, University of Chicago Law

School; Peter Edelman, Georgetown University Law Center;

Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law

School; Eric Segall, Georgia State College of Law; Trevor

Potter, Campaign Legal Center; Gregory P. Downs, University

of California, Davis; Larry Sabato, University of Virginia;

Aziz Huq, University of Chicago Law School; Jennifer

Hochschild, Harvard University; Neil S. Siegel, Duke

University School of Law; Beau Breslin, Skidmore College.

David C. Vladeck, Georgetown University Law Center; Sanford

Levinson, University of Texas at Austin School of Law; Ira C.

Lupu, George Washington University Law School; Peter M.

Shane, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law; Ira P.

Robbins, American University Washington College of Law;

Michael Greenberger, University of Maryland Francis King

Carey School of Law; David Pozen, Columbia Law School; Mark

Tushnet, Harvard Law School; Michael C. Dorf, Cornell Law

School; Miguel Schor, Drake University School of Law; David

S. Schwartz, University of Wisconsin Law School; Caroline

Mala Corbin, University of Miami School of Law; Jonathan

Askin, Brooklyn Law School; Aziz Rana, Cornell Law School;

John Mikhail, Georgetown University Law Center; Richard Ford,

Stanford Law School; Richard Primus, University of Michigan

Law School; Joseph Fishkin, University of Texas Law School;

Kate Masur, Northwestern University; Chris Edelson, American

University.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 5107, an undemocratic and paternalistic bill. Free D.C.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives debated the Common-Sense Law Enforcement and Accountability Now in DC Act of 2025 (H.R. 5107) and the District of Columbia Cash Bail Reform Act of 2025 (H.R. 5214). I include in the Record a letter opposing these bills by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Southern Poverty Law Center,

Montgomery, AL, November 18, 2025.

Vote NO on H.R. 5107 and H.R. 5214

Dear Representative: On behalf of the Southern Poverty Law

Center, a civil rights organization committed to advancing

racial justice, public safety, and democratic accountability,

we write to urge you to vote NO on two deeply harmful bills--

H.R. 5107 and H.R. 5214--that together constitute a direct

assault on the District of Columbia's right to self-govern

and on decades of evidence-based progress in public safety.

Far from addressing genuine community needs, these proposals

would drag the District backward into punitive ``tough on

crime'' strategies that have already devastated Black and

Brown communities nationwide while failing to make anyone

safer.

Further criminalization and incarceration are not the

answer to complex societal challenges rooted in poverty,

inequality, and disinvestment. True public safety comes not

from harsh punishment, but from transforming the criminal

legal system, investing in community-based supports, and

reimagining safety in ways that are fair, effective, and

rooted in public health. The District's recent reforms--

including the accountability measures strengthened under the

Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of

2022, which H.R. 5107 seeks to overturn, and its long-

standing risk-based pretrial system, which H.R. 5214 would

upend--reflect precisely this kind of thoughtful, data-driven

policymaking. These reforms enjoy broad public support, align

with national best practices, and have contributed to

meaningful gains: D.C.'s crime rate is now the lowest it has

been in 30 years, and violent crime fell 35 percent from 2023

to 2024.

These achievements were not accidental. They are the result

of decades of community organizing, research-informed policy,

and consistent engagement with impacted residents. They

reflect a growing national consensus that smart, preventative

investments are more effective than reactionary

criminalization--and they save taxpayer dollars by shifting

scarce resources away from mass incarceration and toward

education, housing, mental health, and violence prevention.

H.R. 5107 and H.R. 5214 would undo this progress. By

stripping away essential police accountability measures and

re-imposing wealth-based pretrial detention, these bills

would re-entrench systems that have already been proven

ineffective, discriminatory, and fiscally irresponsible. They

would override the will of D.C. residents, destabilize

communities, and reinstate practices that make the District

less safe.

The residents of Washington, D.C., like those of any other

jurisdiction, deserve the right to elect leaders who

determine their own laws, public safety policies, and budget.

Yet these bills, introduced under the guise of improving

safety, are part of a broader political effort to impose

ideologically driven federal control on Black-led cities and

to roll back successful reforms through fear-based narratives

about ``law and order.'' This is not about safety; it is

about weaponizing federal power to score political points and

undermine civil rights protections. An administration that

truly cared about public safety would not have rescinded

hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants for gun

violence prevention, victim services, and community-based

safety programs.

We urge Congress to reject these attacks on D.C.'s

autonomy. Allowing such federal overreach would set a

dangerous precedent for undermining local governance

nationwide, particularly in jurisdictions with progressive or

Black leadership. This fight is not just about the District

of Columbia, it is about protecting democracy, equity, and

self-determination in communities across the country.

Vote NO on H.R. 5214--``District of Columbia Cash Bail Reform

Act of 2025''

This bill seeks to do two things: create a list of offenses

for which a person must be detained for the entire pretrial

period based solely on what they were charged with, without

regard for the particular circumstances and without providing

due process; and create a list of offenses for which a person

must pay money in order to be released from pretrial

detention, even if they do not pose a risk to public safety

or a risk of flight. This bill would create a wealth-based,

two-tiered system of justice that benefits the multibillion-

dollar for-profit bail industry, all without improving public

safety.

Money bail creates a two-tiered system of justice without

protecting public safety

Money bail has created a two-tiered justice system--one

that privileges wealth over safety. It allows people with

money to purchase their freedom regardless of the risk they

pose to others, while those without financial means remain

jailed even when they present no threat This system doesn't

ask whether someone is dangerous; it only asks whether they

can pay. The result is a system where wealth, not justice,

determines who waits for trial at home and who waits behind

bars.

By setting a price on freedom, cash bail effectively

divides our justice system into two: one for the wealthy and

one for everyone else. Those who can afford bail walk free;

those who cannot are punished for their poverty without even

having been convicted of anything. Beyond being fundamentally

unfair, this practice undermines public safety. Pretrial

detention destabilizes lives--causing people to lose their

jobs, homes, or even custody of their children. Research

shows that the likelihood of a future arrest jumps from 24

percent after one day in jail to 45 percent after three days,

proof that unnecessary detention fuels instability and

recidivism. When someone cannot afford bail, they can sit in

jail for days, months, or even years without a conviction.

That is not justice--it is punishment for being poor.

Jurisdictions that have reformed their bail practices have

been successful

Every person deserves to live in a community that is safe,

fair, and just. Bail reform advances that goal by ensuring

that decisions about pretrial detention are based on public

safety--not on a person's wealth. Across the country, study

after study has proven that jurisdictions that have reformed

or eliminated cash bail have made their systems fairer

without increasing crime. Judges

who focus on safety rather than money make decisions that

better protect both individuals and their communities.

The results speak for themselves. After Illinois eliminated

cash bail, violent crime dropped by 7 percent and property

crime by 14 percent. New Jersey's reforms led to a 20 percent

reduction in violent crime while maintaining high court

appearance rates. In Harris County, Texas, ending cash bail

for most misdemeanors did not increase crime. A nationwide

study by the Brennan Center for Justice found the same

pattern across nearly two dozen jurisdictions: bail reform

does not lead to higher crime. The data is consistent and

compelling--bail reform enhances justice and preserves

safety, despite fearmongering from its opponents.

D.C.'s risk-based bail system has served as a national model

since 1992

For more than three decades, Washington, D.C. has shown

that a justice system without cash bail can work, and work

well. Since 1992, judges in D.C. have made pretrial decisions

based on a person's risk to public safety rather than their

ability to pay. The outcomes are impressive: in the last four

years, 88 percent of people released pretrial in D.C.

remained completely arrest-free, and 98 percent remained free

from arrest for violent offenses. These numbers demonstrate

that when freedom is tied to fairness, not finances,

communities are safer and more stable.

Under D.C.'s system, judges assess risk through evidence-

based hearings. Detention is used only when no safe

alternative exists, ensuring that pretrial incarceration is a

rare and deliberate outcome--not the default. D.C. also

invests in supportive pretrial services such as court date

reminders, transportation assistance, and access to mental

health care. These measures help people appear in court and

stay on track, strengthening both accountability and public

safety. Transparent hearings and timely decisions make the

process fair, fast, and equitable--showing that justice does

not have to come at the expense of compassion.

Mandatory cash bail only benefits the multibillion-dollar

for-profit bail industry

Mandatory cash bail doesn't protect communities--it

protects profits. The effort to roll back bail reform is a

handout to the for-profit bail industry, which thrives on the

desperation of working families. Bail bonds function like

predatory payday loans: families must pay a nonrefundable fee

to a bail bondsman, money they never get back--even if

charges are dropped. This $2 billion-a-year industry depends

entirely on maintaining cash bail, because without it, its

exploitative business model collapses.

The bail industry has built a powerful political machine to

protect its profits. The American Bail Coalition, its chief

lobbying group, spends millions to oppose reform efforts

across the country. It has partnered with well-funded

conservative organizations to push legislation that

criminalizes charitable bail funds--programs that help

families avoid these predatory practices. In short, mandatory

cash bail enriches a few at the expense of justice, safety,

and the public good. Congress should not allow corporate

greed to dictate who sits in jail and who walks free.

Mandatory pretrial detention based on charge alone violates

the Constitution

The proposed bill's provision requiring automatic pretrial

detention based solely on the charge is not only unjust--it

is almost certainly unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court

made this clear in United States v. Salerno, holding that

pretrial detention must be a ``carefully limited exception,''

not the rule. Detaining someone without an individualized

hearing strips them of due process and violates one of our

most fundamental constitutional rights: the presumption of

innocence. Liberty cannot be taken away solely based on

accusation, without more.

We are not aware of a single jurisdiction in the country

that allows detention based solely on the nature of the

charge, and for good reason--it would not withstand

constitutional scrutiny. This bill would set a dangerous

precedent, eroding basic civil liberties and undermining

decades of legal precedent that protect fairness in our

criminal justice system.

Vote NO on H.R. 5107--``The Common Sense Law Enforcement and

Accountability in D.C. Now Act''

Congress should reject H.R. 5107 because it would override

critical public-safety reforms adopted unanimously by the

District of Columbia Council in the Comprehensive Policing

and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022--reforms designed to

hold officers accountable, improve transparency, and

strengthen community trust. These are not abstract ideals;

they were enacted in response to concrete, well-documented

failures within the Metropolitan Police Department.

The D.C. reforms were necessary to hold officers accountable

for serious misconduct

Before the Act, D.C. had no effective mechanism to remove

officers who engaged in egregious criminal behavior. A 2021

audit revealed that at least 64 officers were found by

internal investigators to have committed criminal misconduct.

The department attempted to fire 24 of those officers--but 21

were shielded by procedural barriers, often driven by union

intervention. Even more troubling, the department made no

attempt to fire more than 40 officers involved in criminal

conduct such as drunk driving, harassment, property damage,

theft, and stalking. Every officer credibly accused of

domestic violence remained on the force, including one

officer who admitted to punching his wife so hard in the face

that he fractured her eye socket, and another officer who

used a car to run over the mother of his child. Some officers

remain on the force due to the powerful police union's

refusal to allow officers to be held accountable. This was

true for a D.C. officer who, ultimately, remained on the

force after having been convicted of sexually assaulting a

woman in his patrol car.

The Act responded to these failures by streamlining the

process for removing officers who commit serious misconduct

and by prohibiting agencies from hiring officers with known

records of abuse. It also established a police-misconduct

database to prevent the well-documented problem of

``wandering officers''--individuals fired or forced out for

misconduct who quietly move to new departments. States like

Florida and Texas have documented hundreds to thousands of

such cases annually. There are almost 1,100 wandering

officers in any given year in Florida; in Texas, about a

quarter of law enforcement officers fired for misconduct were

subsequently hired by another law enforcement agency.

Weakening the Act would mean turning a blind eye to the

recycling of abusive officers. Databases to keep track of

officer misconduct help law enforcement agencies avoid

unknowingly hiring an officer with documented behavioral

problems.

The Act includes essential safeguards to address excessive

use of force

D.C. law enforcement reports roughly 2,300 use-of-force

incidents every year--a number that demands oversight,

especially since a small group of officers account for a

disproportionate share of these incidents. Eighty-six

officers reported five or more uses of force, and 17 reported

at least 10. Use of force overwhelmingly targets Black

residents, who are the subjects in roughly 94% of documented

incidents. Importantly, these numbers reflect only cases

officers self-reported, meaning the true numbers are likely

far higher.

To confront these issues, the Act created a Use of Force

Review Board, required robust de-escalation training, and

mandated public release of body-worn camera footage after

shootings and other serious events. Jurisdictions that

release such footage consistently see improved community

trust and enhanced transparency. Body cameras provide an

impartial record, encourage better policing practices, and

allow communities to participate meaningfully in oversight.

These policies do not endanger public safety--they strengthen

it.

Transparency and accountability lead to safer communities

Contrary to fear-based narratives, reforms that require

accountability do not undermine law enforcement; they help

restore public confidence and encourage collaboration between

police and the communities they serve. As the District's

Attorney General has explained, ``the Comprehensive Policing

and Justice Reform Amendment Act is designed to improve

public safety by strengthening cooperation between officers

of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and the community

they serve. This legislation is essential in ensuring the

swift and certain discipline of officers who use excessive

force or violate constitutional rights, which will go far to

improve trust and mutual respect between police officers and

the community.''

By overturning D.C.'s locally enacted reforms, H.R. 5107

would reinstate a system where officers who commit serious

misconduct remain on the force, where excessive use of force

goes unaddressed, and where transparency is weakened.

Congress should respect D.C.'s democratic process, support

evidence-based public-safety measures, and vote NO on H.R.

5107.

In this pivotal moment, Congress has a choice: to respect

the District's democratic will and its proven, evidence-based

approach to public safety, or to impose regressive federal

mandates that endanger civil rights, destabilize communities,

and undermine decades of progress. H.R. 5107 and H.R. 5214

are not solutions--they are setbacks that would weaken

accountability, revive discriminatory practices, and replace

effective reforms with policies long discredited by research

and experience. We urge you to stand with the residents of

Washington, D.C., to uphold the principles of local self-

governance, and to vote NO on these bills. The nation is

watching, and your leadership in defending justice, equity,

and democracy is essential. For more information, please

contact Aiden Cotter, Senior Policy Counsel for Decarceration

and Decriminalization.

Best regards,

LaShawn Warren,

Chief Policy Officer.

Sakira Cook,

Federal Policy Director.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up

House Resolution 879 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

Yesterday, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, H. Res. 879, providing for the House's consideration of eight separate measures.

The rule provides closed rules for consideration of S.J. Res. 80, H.J. Res. 130, H.J. Res. 131 with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, or their respective designees, for each joint resolution. The rule provides each such joint resolution one motion to recommit.

Further, the rule provides closed rules for the consideration of H.R. 1949 and H.R. 3109 with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, or their respective designees, for each bill. The rule provides each bill with a motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 58 under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services, or their respective designees.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 5214 and H.R. 5107 under closed rules with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, or their respective designees, on each bill. The rule provides for one motion to recommit for each bill.

Finally, the rule tables H. Res. 581 upon the transmission of a message to the Senate that the House has passed H.R. 4405.

Mr. Speaker, after over 40 days of the Democrat government shutdown, the House has returned to regular order, and this majority is continuing to push forward with the America First agenda, the American people's agenda.

All of these pieces of legislation we are considering today are in alignment with the American people's demand and President Trump's executive orders that we maintain a robust posture of American energy dominance.

You know, Mr. Speaker, our Democrat colleagues have developed a strong proclivity to thumb their noses at the development of energy that comes from American soil. One must wonder why they choose to do that. They pay lipservice to environmental protections and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it is just a fact that American oil and American natural gas are cleaner and more environmentally friendly than any from our global competitors.

Why would they cede our dominance on the global stage in favor of hostile actors who lack even the most basic environmental protections?

We are blessed as a nation to have vast repositories of natural resources that we can draw from and utilize accordingly. When we ignore the opportunities to harness these resources for our benefit, we deny ourselves the opportunity to grow more self-sufficient.

H.R. 5214 and H.R. 5107, two measures reported from the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, focus on restoring law and order in our Nation's Capital City, a city that ought to be a model for the rest of the Nation to follow.

H.R. 5214 would revoke cashless bail in the District of Columbia and would require mandatory pretrial and postconviction detention for crimes of violence and other dangerous crimes.

H.R. 5107 would repeal the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 enacted by the District of Columbia Council. This act targeted police officers in D.C. for simply doing their duties, and it led to over 1,600 officers being removed from the city's force.

Thanks to President Trump's efforts, the streets in D.C. are safer, and we have the opportunity through these two measures to add to that progress.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have H. Con. Res. 58, a resolution denouncing the horrors of socialism. Most of us here in this body recognize how dangerous the plague of socialism really is. We understand its history of failure and oppression. Throughout history, this ideology has collapsed into the most brutal of dictatorships, communist regimes, and outright totalitarian rule.

Many are quick to avert their eyes and cover their ears when presented with facts about the horrors of socialism, how many individuals across the world have suffered and died because of it. This resolution will put everyone in this body on record. The American people will see who espouses this caustic ideology and those who reject it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, while it is true there have been 80 closed measures, this number needs context. Twelve of the closed rules were in the rules package, which passed 2 weeks before the 119th Rules Committee even organized to begin meeting. Additionally, 25 measures were CRAs. They don't allow for an amendment. Sixteen were bills that received no amendments, meaning 41 measures were closed by definition. It is also important that four of the closed rules are duplicates from a previous failed rule. In reality, only 27 measures have been closed by discretion of the Committee.

Additionally, the Rules Committee under Republican control has simply been more productive, producing more total rules than our colleagues ever did. For example, during the most recent Democratic-controlled Congresses, the Rules Committee produced 127 total rules in the 116th Congress and 163 in the 117th Congress. Contrast this to the 200 total rules in the Republican-led 118th Congress. For the 119th, we are on pace to once again produce nearly 200 rules for the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, we are doing our job. We are not closing out debate. We are having plenty of debate. There are plenty of opportunities for our colleagues to offer amendments. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens).

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

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear: Republicans don't oppose the full transparency of the Epstein files. We embrace the Oversight Committee's task of doing just that. We embrace Representative Massie's legislation here today by putting it up for a vote under suspension. I will be voting for it.

We already have a House investigation that carries the full force of law, and there is no opposition to respecting the majority's wishes to get this codified into law. Let's get to it. Let's get to the vote and end these false debates, straw man arguments, and non sequiturs.

We tried to pass this bill last week, but Democrats wouldn't agree to doing so. Let's vote now. Democrats should stop, listen, and take yes for an answer.

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

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

At the top of this page, I have written: ``Democrat hypocrisy on Epstein.'' Mr. Speaker, that is what we are hearing today.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. I am proud to have supported the full investigation into the Epstein files on that committee.

Furthermore, I am proud to have supported formalizing that investigation by taking the decisive step in directing that investigation by a special rule provided by the Rules Committee. This gave the Oversight Committee's investigation the full weight of the House of Representatives behind the committee's existing subpoena power. It is very important in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, let's get things straight here. In just a matter of hours, we will vote on the Massie bill. That won't preclude the existing House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's investigation in any way. That is a great thing because that investigation is yielding results.

We now know that one of Jeffrey Epstein's closest confidantes was apparently Larry Summers, a Cabinet member in the Clinton administration. We now know that a Democrat Member in this body, Stacey Plaskett, was colluding with Jeffrey Epstein in real time during a hearing. The subject matter was how to take down President Trump. We can't make this stuff up.

We now know that Epstein himself hated President Trump. It is in black and white. We now know that one of the chief Epstein victims stated that President Trump never acted inappropriately.

Don't forget that oversight investigations specifically subpoenaed Bill and Hillary Clinton for their ties to Jeffrey Epstein. They haven't been quick to step into the breach and exonerate themselves, have they?

The truth will continue to come out, as it has, because of Republicans and a current Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee investigation, one that already carries the full force of law. Let's see where that leads.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we need to get facts straight here. President Trump's Department of Justice in his first term arrested and prosecuted Jeffrey Epstein. We, on our side, want justice to prevail in this case and in every case.

Speaker Johnson has always been clear that if the discharge petition reached the necessary signatures, then the House would consider the legislation, and that is what we are providing for in our rule today.

In fact, as soon as the petition hit 218 votes last Wednesday, House Republicans offered a unanimous consent request to pass the legislation then.

However, the Democratic leader would not give consent to do that last week.

Why?

It is because they are not really interested in this. They are interested in some other things.

Mr. Speaker, I have to correct the Record.

Mr. Massie did not request time from me. I am the person who controls the time on the Republican side. He did not request time from me. I would have given him time.

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

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

Our colleagues want Americans to believe that this discharge petition and underlying legislation are the be-all and end-all in this investigation. However, it is House Republicans who have worked tirelessly to achieve true justice for victims.

To date, the significant information that has come out has come from the Oversight and Government Reform Committee as a result of it issuing 13 subpoenas. We have released 65,000 pages of documents from the Department of Justice; the Epstein estate, which was not mentioned in the underlying legislation; the former U.S. attorney; and others.

Let me say it again. The unanimous-consent request to pass the legislation immediately last week was blocked by the minority leader, full stop. If Democrats truly cared about finding justice immediately for victims, this legislation would have been passed last week. Instead, they want political theater to capitalize on.

House Republicans, on the other hand, remain focused on truth, accountability, and delivering real justice for Epstein's victims, not political points.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, those of us who did not sign the discharge petition are just as concerned about the victims or, as some are calling them, survivors as our colleagues who signed the discharge petition.

We share contempt for anyone who abused anyone else. I have stood on this floor many times, Mr. Speaker, to speak out for victims and survivors of people who have been abused and against anyone who breaks the law or takes advantage of an innocent person.

We will not be characterized as insensitive to that, but House Republicans

who didn't sign the discharge petition remain focused on truth, accountability, and delivering real justice for Epstein victims.

Again, I will point out that it was under President Trump's Department of Justice that Jeffrey Epstein was arrested and tried. We have not tried to avoid this situation. We want things done the right way. We want maximum justice for these victims and survivors.

Our rule today simply expedites consideration of the Massie-Khanna legislation. As I said, we would have liked to have seen it pass last week when we gave an opportunity for it, but it was blocked by the Democratic minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for support for this rule and the underlying legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are working more and more for less and less.

Almost every day, I speak with young people who can't afford to start a family, can't buy a house, and can't get ahead. I hear it from seniors who are struggling to survive on fixed incomes. I see it with my own eyes. Moms and dads are putting items back on the shelves in the grocery store because they can't afford them. Parents can't go back to work because they can't afford childcare. People's health insurance premiums are doubling and tripling because this majority has failed to act.

During election season, we heard from Trump and Republicans who swore up and down they would bring down prices. They promised the American people they would reverse inflation and focus like a laser on affordability. They have broken that promise. They have betrayed the American people.

If you want more evidence of that, look at the bills on the floor today: more garbage, more culture war crap, more bills written by this Republican majority of, by, and for the billionaire class.

Republicans moved Heaven and Earth to give tax breaks to the rich and powerful. That got done in a nanosecond.

If you are a regular person staring down next year's healthcare premium hikes and deciding whether to pay a thousand bucks more or put food on the table, the answer you get back from the Republicans is: Let them eat cake.

We are barreling toward another shutdown at the end of January. We could have spent the last 2 months working on passing the nine appropriations bills Republicans still need to pass to stop another shutdown. Instead, they went on a taxpayer-funded paid vacation for 8 weeks.

Let me just say, because we are debating a rule to consider these eight bills, this rule sucks. There are eight closed rules, no amendments, no changes allowed on the floor, take it or leave it. If you are keeping count at home, that is 80 completely closed rules this Congress, the most ever in a year.

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the gentlewoman because last night in the Rules Committee she said that five of these bills didn't receive any amendments. That is because she didn't ask for any. When you don't send an amendment deadline, everyone knows you are doing a closed rule.

My Republican colleagues have been complicit in these 80 closed rules. Nearly 9 out of 10 times, the majority party has not been allowed to bring amendments to the floor. They are getting blocked by their own leadership time and time again. How does that feel?

Again, this is a terrible rule, and I urge a ``no'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, those are a lot of words to justify the most closed Congress in history, the most authoritarian Congress in history. It would make Putin blush.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of H.R. 6074, which would extend the Affordable Care Act enhanced premium tax credits for 3 years, through 2028.

We are in the midst of a healthcare crisis. More than 20 million Americans who get their healthcare on the ACA exchanges are going to see their premiums skyrocket next year. That includes 250,000 people in my home State of Massachusetts, who are paying lower premiums and copays due to these tax credits, which Democrats created in 2021 and which are set to expire at the end of the year.

Let me read you some of the stories from folks in my district: I just received my letter, and my monthly costs have gone from $1,287 to $3,026 for next year. As a working family with a daughter who has an autoimmune disease, we are struggling, and I am working 50-plus hours a week just to pay the insurance.

Here is another one: With the Health Connector, I was paying $264 per month, acceptable seeing that I am healthy but not young. Without the advanced premium tax credit, my monthly premium will be just over $800 per month. I can't and I won't pay that. I will go without.

This is happening across the country, and for the sake of millions of Americans and their healthcare, I urge my Republican colleagues to support this bill and vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, shortly on the floor, Republicans are about to finally bring up the Massie-Khanna bill to release the Epstein files. We had to drag this leadership here kicking and screaming.

I appreciate their sudden and stunning change of heart on this issue, but I state for the record that the Republican leadership has tried to block this day for months and months and months.

I also want to state for the record that Donald Trump could release these files on his own, today, right now, right this very second. He doesn't need to wait for Congress to pass the bill. He could release the files himself, but he won't. That is why we are here, because he refuses to act.

Meanwhile, the Republican majority has blocked transparency at every turn. They stonewalled in committee. The gentlewoman from North Carolina and every Republican on the Rules Committee voted nine times to block my amendment to release the Epstein files, nine times.

Republicans were so afraid of my amendment that Speaker Johnson shut down the Rules Committee and sent us home early in July, and then he refused to swear in a new Member of Congress for weeks because she promised to be the 218th signature to force this bill forward. Only four Republicans signed the discharge petition. Every single Democrat signed on.

In a few moments, I am going to yield time to Representative Massie, who has been the Republican leader of this effort alongside Representative Khanna on the Democratic side. Here is why I am doing that: This bill should be getting a full hour of debate on the floor, but Speaker Johnson, I guess at Donald Trump's direction, is throwing every procedural gimmick at the wall to see what sticks, and he is trying to limit debate on the floor because for some reason he is very, very afraid of talking about this. That is why I am donating a significant chunk of my time to Members who have been silenced by the Speaker for the terrible crime of demanding truth and transparency.

If I had to guess, most Republicans will probably vote in favor of releasing the files, but they are not voting ``yes'' because their conscience changed. They are voting ``yes'' because Donald Trump tells most of them how to vote, and he realized he has lost on this one.

He says that people who support this bill ``betrayed the entire Republican Party.'' Really, really? How is accountability for a pedophile, something Donald Trump campaigned on, how is that now a betrayal? This was his issue, his idea. He ran on releasing the files.

By the way, to those who say that Biden should have released these files, let me just address that right now. You are right, he should have, but he didn't make it his number one issue, and he is not the President right now. Donald Trump is. He could have released the files at any point over the last 11 months, but he has not.

Republicans have had months to sign the discharge petition. They had months to bring this bill to the floor, but this leadership has chosen obstruction. They don't want to pass this bill. They don't even want to talk about it on the House floor, and so that is why debate matters.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman doesn't oppose this? Boy, she has a funny way of showing it. I gave the gentlewoman nine opportunities in the Committee on Rules to bring this measure to the floor. I gave her nine opportunities. Every time I brought up an amendment, she voted it down. There were nine opportunities. To say that somehow this is always what they wanted, I don't know, but that doesn't pass the smell test.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman says that we should just trust her and Republican leadership. After what I saw unfold over these last several months, I can't. There was obstruction and the use of every maneuver possible to avoid this moment we have here today.

I say for the record: It doesn't matter whether there are Republicans, Democrats, or Independents implicated in these files. We believe in accountability for everybody who abuses young women. We believe in justice. That is kind of what is uniting many of us on this side of the aisle here today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Khanna for his leadership. I thank Representative Massie, Representative Greene, and Representative Mace for their courage and for their willingness to stand up for what is right. We don't agree on very much, but we do agree there ought to be accountability when young women are abused. That is what this is about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie) to control the time.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, let me say how much I admire the courage of my Republican colleagues who are beside me here today.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, this is not about us, and it is not about politics. This is about the survivors, young girls who were exploited by powerful men. These were men who used money and power to take advantage of girls, some as young as 11 years old.

The President of the United States calls it all a hoax. Can you imagine that? What an evil and disgusting thing to say. These young girls, now women, the survivors, what happened to them was horrific. They were sexually abused, many of them for years, and the President of the United States calls it all a hoax.

What kind of messed up, sick-in-the-head, immoral person says something like that? This bill is about making sure that powerful men are held accountable. It is about demanding truth and transparency for the American people.

Republican leaders in this House lost control of the story. They lost the ability to hide behind procedure, and they lost the luxury of pretending that they were ever on the right side. The American people see it. Survivors see it, and history will see it.

Listening to the Speaker of the House's press conference today, it sounds like he basically wants to kill this whole thing. He is trying to obstruct and derail the process.

Why the hell is he fighting so hard to do the opposite of what the survivors want? What an awful, awful thing to do.

Let us release the files. Let's give survivors the transparency they have long been denied. Let us take back power from the rich, billionaire elites who think that they can do whatever they want with no justice or accountability. Let's remember exactly who had to be dragged here under duress and who stood up from day one to demand the truth.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives debated the Common-Sense Law Enforcement and Accountability Now in DC Act of 2025 (H.R. 5107). I include in the Record a letter opposing this bill led by the DC Justice Lab.

Letter of opposition

RE H.R. 5107 and any related attempts to repeal or weaken the

District of Columbia's Comprehensive Policing and Justice

Reform Amendment Act of 2022

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

House Minority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: We, the

undersigned organizations and individuals committed to public

safety and democratic self-governance, urge you to oppose all

legislative efforts now before Congress that would repeal,

defund, or weaken the District of Columbia's Comprehensive

Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 (CPJRAA).

This includes H.R. 5107/S. 2687 (the CLEAN DC Act), which is

up for a vote this week, and H.R. 5166, Sec. 827 (the

Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act

rider blocking CPJRAA implementation).

Together, these bills would dismantle one of the District's

most significant public safety and accountability reforms in

decades. They would reinstate dangerous practices, reopen

pathways for abusive officers to remain on the force, and

override a democratically enacted law grounded in research,

expert input, and community consensus.

The CPJRAA responds to longstanding gaps in police

oversight, transparency, and discipline.

The law strengthened the Office of Police Complaints,

expanded the Police Complaints Board, required the creation

of a public misconduct database, and required timely release

of body-worn camera footage following deaths or serious uses

of force. It closed arbitration loopholes that previously

reinstated officers fired for serious misconduct. In an 18-

month period, the District paid $5.6 million in back pay to

just ten officers who were fired and then returned to duty

through arbitration. The CPJRAA corrected this. These bills

would take us backward.

The CPJRAA also protects residents from dangerous and

deadly encounters.

It restricts deadly force; bans neck restraints; limits

high-speed police pursuits in a dense city where bystanders

are most likely to be hurt; and regulates the acquisition of

military-grade weapons. These reforms were enacted because

these dangerous tactics have repeatedly killed District

residents, disproportionately Black residents, and endangered

children, pedestrians, bicyclists, and other bystanders.

The CPJRAA reduces biased policing and strengthens

evidence-based decision-making.

It improves consent search rules, mandates anti-bias and

de-escalation training, requires review of an officer's poor

misconduct before hiring, and directs independent assessment

of possible ties between officers and hate groups. It

modernizes data systems across agencies and ensures

transparency around school-based arrests, less-lethal

weapons, and disciplinary actions.

Repealing or defunding this law would not make the District

safer. It would restore outdated and harmful practices that

undermine trust, community safety, and officer morale. It

would weaken oversight structures that law enforcement

leaders themselves have said were necessary to keep ``very

bad officers'' off the force (see page 173 of the Report by

the Police Reform Commission). And it would override the

decisions of local officials who are accountable to the

people who live in the District.

Congress should respect the District's authority to govern

itself, especially on matters of public safety. Allowing

these bills to move forward would set a troubling national

precedent by permitting federal intervention into local

policing policy, even when the local reforms are backed by

research, crafted through community input, and aligned with

modern public safety standards.

For these reasons, we urge you to vote against H.R. 5107,

and any related attempts to repeal or obstruct the CPJRAA.

D.C. residents deserve the right to determine the policies

that keep their communities safe.

Sincerely,

Clinique Chapman,

CEO, DC Justice Lab.

Organizational signatories:

ACLU-D.C., Black Swan Academy, Community Shoulders, DC

Action, DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence, DC Democratic

State Committee, DC for Democracy, DC Jail & Prison Advocacy

Project, Fair Budget Coalition, Free DC, Free Minds Book Club

& Writing Workshop, Georgetown Law Center for Innovations in

Community Safety, Harriet's Wildest Dreams, Interfaith Action

for Human Rights.

Leadership for Justice Innovation, LLC, League of Women

Voters of the District of Columbia, League of Women Voters of

the United States, Legislation Clinic (University of the

District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law), Metro DC

DSA, Migrant Solidarity Mutual Aid, Miriam's Kitchen, More

Than Our Crimes.

Movement for Freedom, Neighbors for Justice, Neighbors

United for DC Statehood, Open Horizon, Pretrial Justice

Institute, Raise One Teach One Dalaneo Martin Foundation,

RebuildingTheCommunity, Reframe Health and Justice, School

Justice Project, Scrofano Law PC.

Seeding Stories/Sembrando Historias, Tzedek DC, University

of Baltimore School of Law Center for Criminal Justice

Reform, Volare, Ward 3 Democratic Committee, Ward 3 Democrats

Statehood Task Force, Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil

Rights and Urban Affairs, Wren Action Group.

Individual signatories:

Adam D. Harris, Ailsa Hermann-Wu, AJ Cho, Alex Tyson,

Allister Layne, Aloysius Wald, Andrew Kincare, Ann Wasgatt,

Anne Cauman, Aphra, April Lasiter, Ashley, District Resident,

At-Large Councilmember, Robert White, B. Yohe, Barbara Kraft,

Bill Scher, Blaine Stum, Breanna Gilland, Brianna Buford.

Bruce R. Ross, Carl Jakobsson, Chantel Rollins, Char Esser,

Rabbi Charles Feinberg, Cheryl Dzubak, Cheryl Eames, Cheryl

Marlin, Chris Hammond (Ward 7), Christine Payden-Travers,

Rev. Dr. Christopher Zacharias, (Pastor, John Wesley AME Zion

Church), Christopher, Connie Ridgeway, Cybele Kotonias,

Cynthia Lee, Dallas Windham, Darcy Skarada, David Holmes,

David Wendt, Delia T. Cooke.

Denise Lindgren, Dennis and Susan R. Kepner, Donald R.

Schwartz, Donna Tate, Dorothy Marion, Dr. Elizabeth Allen,

Eileene

Gillson, Elaine M. Carlson, Eleanor Crowe, Elinor Hart,

Elizabeth Paukstis, Emily Han, Erin Smith, F. Robert Wesley,

Francis O'Malley, George Perla, Grayson Parisee, Gregory

Denton, Gwen Umbach, Hannah Milem.

Harold Watson, Heather Goss, Hillary Ellen Kruh, Howard

Garrett, Hugh T. Keleher, Irma Salley, Isa Mirza, Isabella

LeBlanc, J. Yudell, Jackie Neece Gray, Jamelle ``Mellie''

Harris, James Flasch, James Mulcare, Jaqueline Castaneda,

Jason Miller, Jason R. Crawford, Jayme Epstein, Jeanne

Otersen, Jennifer McConnell, Jennifer Ubiera, Esq.

Jessica Wang, Jillian W., Jo Harvey, Joanne S. Metzler, Joe

LeBlanc, Jon Drago, Joy Welan, Kahlil Goodwyn, Kameron Davis,

Karen Cassell, Kathleen A. Mireault, Kathy Colton, Kenedi

McCormick, Kerry Krebill, Kerry Krebill, Kevin K. Walsh,

Kristopher Burrell, LaShunda Hill, Laura Esparza, Laura

Mitterman.

Laurent Ross, Lawerency J.C. Boone Sr., Layne Emery, Leah

Tribbett, Leonard Edwards, Leslie, Linda B., Linda D. Lee,

Linda Oeth, Linda Richardson, Lisa Morenoff, Lore

Wintergreen, Lori Stefano, Lorraine Brabham, Lowell Palm,

Lucinda Snow, Lynette Rynders, Lynn D. Carlson, Madeleine

Straubel, Madeline Hall,

Maeve Gallagher, Maggie Kelfstad, Marcia Curry, Mark

Schroeder, Marsha Davison, Marta Beresin, Maureen Ellis,

Maureen McCarthy, Melanie E. Bates, Michael Smith, Michael

Winston Pan, Minyara Willingham, Monique Jackson,Mykel Victor

Reese, Mystelle Ruble, Naike Savain (Former DC Police Reform

Commissioner), Nashrah Ahmed, Nathan Brenner Sr., Nicola,

Noam Stopak.

Norah Renken, Patricia Harlow, Phil Klein, Rachel Neurohr,

Rafaella Zabot-Hall, Rebbie Davis, Regina Coates, Renaud

De'Aundre Brown, Robert Burks, Ron Mittan, Ronald Hampton

(Washington Representative, Blacks in Law Enforcement), Ryan

Lynch, Sade Cole, Samantha Luisa Crisanti, Sarah Bradach,

Sarah Jane Shoenfeld, Shane O'Shea, Shannon Harper, Shannon

Lynch, Shay Mussulman.

Sincere Allah, Sophia, Sophia Bos-Shadi, Stephan Donovan,

Stephen E. Benson, Stephen Keener, Susan & David Courrejou,

Susan Castelli-Hill, Susan Courtney, Susan Halversen, Susan

Sasha Beth Silverstein, Thea Cabrera Montego, Theodore Voth,

Tom Kirk, Virginia Avniel Spatz, Wade Hampton, Patricia

Stamper (Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner, 7C06), Will

Yetvin.