District of Columbia Policing Protection Act of 2025

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 707 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished 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 have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 707 provides for consideration of seven measures. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4922, H.R. 5140, H.R. 5143, and H.R. 5125 under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or their respective designees.

The rule provides each bill with one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3015, H.R. 3062, and H.R. 1047 under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate each equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their designees.

The rule provides each bill with one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides that in the engrossment of H.R. 3633, the Clerk shall add the text of H.R. 1919 as passed by the House as a new matter at the end of H.R. 3633.

Further, the rule tolls the day counts regarding resolutions of inquiry until March 31, 2026.

Finally, the rule tolls the day counts until March 31, 2026, regarding joint resolutions terminating the national emergencies declared by the President on February 1, 2025; April 2, 2025; and July 30, 2025.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation. The rule before us provides an opportunity for Congress to reverse the disastrous energy and crime policies left behind by the previous administration and restore accountability where needed the most.

For far too long, the American people have been forced to live under a regulatory agenda that drove up costs, weakened our grid, and made our communities less safe. These measures begin to roll back that damage and put us on a stronger and safer trajectory.

To restore accountability in our energy policies, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3015, the National Coal Council Reestablishment Act. This legislation permanently restores the National Coal Council, an advisory body for nearly four decades, providing expert recommendations on matters affecting the American coal sector.

Established in 1984, the council delivered 40 reports to the Secretary of Energy on coal markets, research and development into clean coal technologies, and regulatory barriers that affect the coal industry.

However, in 2021, at the behest of leftwing organizations, the Biden administration disregarded this history and disbanded the council, replacing it with an advisory body charged with fulfilling the left's Green New Deal agenda. Make no mistake. This was not about policy, it was about shutting coal out of the conversation, an essential piece of our Nation's energy matrix.

The United States is home to the world's largest coal reserves, with approximately 440 years' worth of supply at current production levels. Today, our fleet of over 400 coal-fired power plants provide 16 percent of America's electricity, and in five States, coal provides more than one-half. In 17 States it provides more than 20 percent. Together, the coal industry supports hundreds of thousands of jobs, lifts up small communities across the country, and provides affordable and reliable baseload power that helps keep prices stable.

Premature retirements of coal plants are being driven by Federal and State policies that intentionally attack their financial viability, yet the demand for electricity is only going up.

Since 2022, the retirement of 29,000 megawatts of coal capacity has been delayed because of rising demand and insufficient replacement resources. To put it bluntly, removing coal from the grid at this moment in time would lead to higher costs and greater instability for families and businesses. This is a reality that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to acknowledge.

In New York we are already seeing what these anti-energy radical policies have done: shutting down production of reliable baseload power in favor of pursuing unrealistic and dangerous green agenda items.

Now, despite widespread public opposition, Governor Kathy Hochul and Albany Democrats are moving forward with a ban on natural gas and propane hookups in new construction starting in 2026. That means families in western New York, where winters are long, snow is great, and it is cold and oftentimes dangerous in these terrible winter storms, they will be denied the ability to choose the energy source that best keeps them safe and warm in their homes. Taking affordable and reliable options off the table is not sound policy.

It is assaults like this on consumer choice and on the freedom to use reliable, affordable energy like coal and natural gas that leave people more vulnerable when the power goes out. That is why it matters who is at the table. When it comes to energy policy, this measure makes the National Coal Council permanent, so future administrations can't simply shut it down for political reasons.

H.R. 3015 also reinforces President Trump's April 8, 2025, executive order to reinvigorate America's clean coal industry recognizing that coal must remain part of our future if we want to ensure future prosperity, meet rising electricity demands, and lower costs for families.

By reestablishing the National Coal Council, Congress will ensure that reliable, affordable baseload power remains a cornerstone of our energy policy while supporting family-sustaining jobs and fueling next- generation industries like artificial intelligence.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3062, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act. This measure creates a transparent and permanent framework for permitting pipelines and other cross-border energy projects.

For years, developers have been subject to political gamesmanship, destroyed investments, and stranded jobs. The cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline was not based on science; it was simply based on politics. The Biden administration sided with radical activists over American workers in energy security for our country.

We have seen the same story play out in my own State of New York. The Northern Access pipeline was a major natural gas infrastructure project that promised thousands of good-paying jobs, more affordable energy for families across the northeastern United States, and new tax revenue for rural communities like mine in the southern tier.

However, instead of moving forward, that project was tied up with endless red tape and obstructed by regulators. Western New York and the southern tier lost jobs and investment in energy security that would have come from it. A project that should have supported a large construction workforce and strengthened our region was derailed again because of politics.

This is exactly why permitting reform is needed and is needed now. Without certainty, projects like this will continue to slip away, taking good jobs and economic growth with them.

Energy developers, workers, and communities all deserve better. Yet when it comes to the permitting reforms that would actually allow critical energy projects to move forward, Democrats have consistently acquiesced to the demands of radical environmental groups instead of the needs

of American workers and their families.

The result is higher costs and fewer options for American families. This legislation cuts through that red tape, gives developers certainty, and ensures critical projects can move forward.

In addition, the rule includes H.R. 1047, the Guaranteeing Reliability Through the Interconnection of Dispatchable Power Act.

Year after year, projects that would keep the lights on and lower bills are stuck in the interconnection queues and regulatory wait lists. Sometimes as long as 7 years they are stuck there. That is simply unacceptable. Families do not care about bureaucratic excuses. They care about whether their homes are heated in the winter and cooled in the summer. This legislation cuts through that backlog. It empowers grid operators to prioritize projects that actually enhance reliability.

Let us be clear about how we got here. Democrats have spent years forcing premature retirements of coal, nuclear, and natural gas through excessive regulation, while shoveling subsidies to wind and solar. The result is interconnection queues flooded with projects that only have a 5 percent completion rate.

Meanwhile, Democrat policies have left ratepayers footing the bill for two grids. One grid props up wind and solar with massive transmission costs. The other is the backup power we all rely on when the Sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.

This measure puts reliability first. It follows the lead of major grid operators who know the danger of relying too heavily on intermittent sources, and it makes sure that the grid is strong enough not only to keep the lights on at home but also to power next- generation industries like AI and manufacturing so America, not China, leads the future.

Mr. Speaker, energy security is, simply put, national security. The rule before us takes important steps to keep power reliable and affordable and American made.

But security is not just about the strength of our grid. It is also about the safety of our communities. Nowhere is that failure of safety more visible than right here in our Nation's capital.

While Washington should be a place that is showcased as what is the very best of America, it has instead become a city struggling with violent crime, juvenile offenses, and weakened law enforcement. The next measures in this rule take direct aim at those failures and restore accountability where the D.C. council has refused to act.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 4922, the D.C. Crimes Act of 2025. This legislation reasserts congressional oversight over the District by prohibiting the D.C. council from further pursuing its progressive, soft-on-crime sentencing guidelines.

The council has failed to keep residents and visitors from our country and from around the world safe. Even as violent crime has soared, police staffing has dropped to a 50-year low. This measure takes direct aim at the council's reckless decisions. It lowers the definition of a youth offender from under 25 to under 18 where it belongs so that adults are simply treated as adults.

It ends judicial discretion that allows juvenile, violent offenders to escape mandatory minimums, and it prohibits the council from weakening mandatory minimums on sentencing guidelines any further.

Make no mistake, carjackings and robberies by juveniles are out of control. More than 500 minors were arrested for robbery in 2023, and more carjackings were committed by juveniles. Every American should be able to visit their Nation's capital without fear of being the next victim.

We know all too well what happens when local leaders choose leniency over accountability. In my home State of New York, cashless bail has unleashed a wave of tragic and entirely preventable outcomes. Governor Hochul and Democrats have doubled down on procriminal policies that put violent offenders back on our streets, leaving families and communities to suffer the consequences. The American people deserve better. New Yorkers deserve better. People in Washington, D.C., deserve better, and President Trump has already stepped in to end cashless bail here in Washington. It is long past time for New York to follow that lead.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 5140, the District of Columbia juvenile sentencing reform act. Since the pandemic, juvenile crime has surged. More than 2,000 juveniles were arrested in both 2023 and 2024. According to the Metropolitan Police Department, over half of robbery arrests last year were juveniles. This year, juveniles account for more than half of carjacking arrests. This legislation responds to that reality.

Current law allows juveniles 16 and older to be tried as adults for violent crimes. This measure lowers that age to 14. These are not youthful mistakes. They are violent, life-altering crimes.

Consider the tragic example of Mohammad Anwar, a hardworking immigrant killed in 2021 by two teenage girls during a carjacking. Both will be back on the streets by the age of 21.

In July of 2023, another Lyft driver, who previously served as an interpreter for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, was fatally shot while driving. The teen responsible was just 14 years old. They were sentenced to only 3 years of secure detention. Old enough to commit horrific and senseless murder, yet he will be back on the streets in just 3 years.

Let me be clear. This legislation applies only to violent crimes: murder, first degree sexual abuse, burglary in the first degree, and robbery while armed. These are serious offenses that endanger residents and visitors to our Nation's capital every day. They demand serious consequences to truly restore law and order.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 5143, the District of Columbia Policing Protection Act. In 2023, the council imposed a set of restrictions that require officers to evaluate a checklist of 14 factors to decide whether to pursue a fleeing suspect. One of those factors even requires an officer to determine whether anyone in the suspect's car had a chance to surrender a weapon. That is absurd. Officers rarely have time or information to work through such a checklist when a suspect takes off.

This legislation repeals those restrictions. It restores discretion to trained officers. It allows pursuit when an officer or supervisor determines it is necessary, the most effective means of apprehension, and does not present an unreasonable risk to bystanders. Officers must be able to act quickly to protect lives, and this measure restores that authority.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5125, the District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Reform Act. The Judicial Nomination Commission currently limits President Trump's choices for D.C. judges to a very narrow list of names. That process is slow, it is politicized, and it is very likely unconstitutional under the appointments clause. The result has been persistent vacancies, clogged courts, and criminals slipping through the cracks.

This legislation abolishes the commission and restores normal constitutional processes. The President nominates; the Senate confirms. That is how it works everywhere else in America, and that is how it should work right here in D.C. A duly elected President should not be bound by a bureaucratic commission when choosing judges. By ending this broken system, we can fill vacancies faster, strengthen courts, and ensure justice is delivered without delay.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats' soft-on-crime policies have failed in D.C. just as they have failed in States like New York. These bills hold the line, restore accountability, and put public safety ahead of politics.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle love to talk about affordability. They love to play class warfare, but if Democrats were serious about lowering costs for working families, then they wouldn't have spent the last 4 years driving energy prices higher with more regulations, higher taxes, and subsidies that pick winners and losers.

Families have felt the pain every time they fill up their gas tank, pay their rising utility bills, or try to keep their lights on in their small businesses.

Republicans, working with President Trump, are focused on real solutions: Restoring energy policy that unleashes production here at home secures our grid, delivers reliable, affordable power that families and businesses can count on, and creates jobs in the process. That is exactly what this rule is about.

The three energy bills before us are straightforward. They support family-sustaining energy jobs. They streamline approvals for cross- border infrastructure and ensure reliable and dispatchable generation for the grid. Together, they mean lower bills for families, stronger supply chains, and a more competitive America.

When Democrats talk about affordability, they don't have a leg to stand on in this fight because it is their assault on the American energy industry that led to so much of the inflation that this country suffered under for the last 5 years.

The answer is right here in the rule, and we need to support this legislation.

I strongly support the legislation and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on the gentleman's comments on tariffs.

Republicans are doing what Democrats promised the American people for generations that they would do but utterly failed at: ensuring fair trade, protecting American workers, and bringing countries to the negotiating table in the process. For years, Democrats sold a bill of goods to working-class Americans while they turned a blind eye as their factories closed and their jobs were shipped overseas.

Today, Democrats claim to be the party of working families, and we know that is not the case. Yet, it is President Trump, over the Democrats' loud objections, who is fighting for fair trade deals for our working families, like the working families in New York's 23rd Congressional District.

Access to the American economy is a privilege, not a right. President Trump is using tariffs as leverage to reduce reciprocal barriers, safeguard our national security, and level the global playing field for American producers and manufacturers, and it is working.

Treasury has already collected more than $29 billion in tariff revenue this year, while countries like India, China, and South Korea are at the table negotiating new deals as we speak.

This is the same decisive leadership that secured stronger trade agreements with the EU, Japan, the U.K., and partners across Asia. These aren't trade wars. They are trade wins that deliver more jobs, higher wages, and greater opportunities for American families and American products around the world.

Mr. Speaker, the same focus on protecting working families is exactly what we are doing with the bills before us today. This rule advances commonsense legislation to strengthen our grid, unleash American energy, and restore coal's role in the mix.

Also, let's not underplay what it means to protect the people of Washington, D.C., which we do have a Federal oversight responsibility for. Having a crime-ridden Nation's Capital is unacceptable by any metric.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let's set the record straight. There is a lot to unpack there and a lot of talk about playing games, but what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to admit is how during the COVID-19 pandemic they had intentionally passed premium tax credits with a sunset allowing them to expire and, in the process, playing politics with the healthcare of millions of Americans.

If Democrats truly supported these credits, as they claim they now do, being made permanent, they would have made them permanent when they controlled both Chambers of Congress and the White House. It would have been suggested by President Biden when he was in the White House that it should have been a priority of the Congress. They refused to do so. They never brought that up.

Mr. Speaker, this is a pattern with Democrats. They would rather use working families for their political means and ends than genuinely work to make their lives better. The American people see that for what it is. Mr. Speaker, you are hearing: The sky is falling. Everyone is going to lose their healthcare if this is not attached to a CR at this moment.

Yes, we do have the majority. I am confident we will pass the CR in the House. However, Mr. Speaker, you know darn well that in the Senate, Leader Schumer will hold the majority hostage using the filibuster to force us into a shutdown, just like they threatened to do in March. I mean, that is the tactic that is being played. All these expectations are being set by the other side, knowing that they have a trap door, and they intend to try to leverage the American people to get more of their political will accomplished.

Republicans already voted to deliver lower premiums for patients by passing H.R. 1, which targeted waste, fraud, and abuse across the ACA marketplace. Democrats unanimously opposed this bill, showing once again they are not serious about solving affordability problems for everyday Americans, just like they are not serious about trying to keep the government open. If they were, they would have supported these commonsense policies. Instead, they would rather play politics.

Mr. Speaker, what we are actually debating today are commonsense measures in this rule to strengthen American energy policy, to keep violent crime off our streets here in our Capital City. These bills are about lowering costs for working families, keeping our communities safe and restoring accountability. We are getting the job done with or without their support.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle want to pretend Republicans are manufacturing a crime crisis in our Nation's Capital, but the facts tell a completely different story. Under President Biden and Democratic leadership, Washington, D.C., became one of the most dangerous cities in America.

In 2023, D.C. had the fourth highest homicide rate in the Nation, trailing only New Orleans, St. Louis, and Detroit. If D.C. were a State, it would have had the highest homicide rate in America. That number could be even higher because, as we know, D.C. officials may have manipulated the crime

data to hide the true extent of the problem.

Democrats would rather fudge the numbers to justify their radical policy experiments in places like D.C. than actually protect communities from violent crime. The same thing is happening in my home State of New York. They would rather quibble over process arguments and gaslighting using false statistics than acknowledge how many lives have been saved since President Trump took action to enforce law and order in the streets of Washington.

This is how unserious and radical today's Democratic Party has become. Contrast this with what has happened since President Trump stepped in. In the 20 days following the Federal surge, carjackings dropped 87 percent compared to the same period last year. Across the board, violent crime fell 39 percent, burglaries dropped 45 percent, and carjackings fell 75. More than 2,700 arrests were made and 323 firearms were recovered. These aren't talking points. They are results. They are real safety improvements felt by families here in the District of Columbia.

While Democrats scramble to defend their failed policies and liberal experiments in America's major cities, and they downplay the true cost in lives that come from policies that have long been supported in these cities, Republicans are restoring accountability, enforcing the law, and delivering real results to make our communities safer. That is exactly what this rule is about.

The legislation before us strengthens accountability here in Washington, D.C., our Nation's Capital. It should be the gem of the country, and it will be again. If Democrats are truly serious about protecting families, they should support this rule and all of the underlying legislation, which is common sense to support law and order and protect the lives of the residents and the visitors to this great city.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the authors of inflation, the creators of inflation on the other side of this Chamber, the people who hypercharged an economy and drove down the value of our dollar, are now going to lecture us on why groceries cost so much. Where the hell have they been for the last 4 years? Where were they when Americans were struggling with the cost of their groceries because gas was up near $4 a gallon?

Their policies determined that when they ran all facets of the government. Now, they have this revisionist history, and they want to talk about a cup of coffee.

The tariff negotiations that President Trump has used have created new deals and new markets for our products around the globe. It is making a more competitive America, and we are not going to be taken advantage of by other countries anymore.

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

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

Again, more and more class warfare, Mr. Speaker. We hear the term ``millionaires and billionaires'' thrown around. Yet, every single one of them voted against all the tax benefits that would have helped the middle class and will continue to help the middle class.

The minority voted against no tax on tips, against no tax on overtime,

against doubling the child tax credit, and against doubling the standard deduction, all things that put serious money back into the pockets of my constituents.

Now, to my colleague, $1,800, $2,000, $2,500 might not seem like a lot to him, but it might be two mortgage payments to my constituents. Yet, every single one of them voted no.

I will not be lectured, and none of us should be lectured by people who stood in the way of getting that tax code made permanent.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, for far too long, Americans have been forced to endure higher costs, weaker energy security, and rising crime because of policies pushed by the left.

The American people rejected that approach last November, and they elected a President and a Congress committed to restoring accountability, protecting families, and ensuring our future is built on reliable and affordable American energy.

The measures in this rule fulfill that promise. They strengthen our grid, cut through bureaucratic red tape, and make sure America, not China, leads in powering the next generation.

They also hold the line on public safety by rolling back soft-on- crime policies here in our Nation's Capital in Washington, D.C., and they restore the accountability that local leaders have refused to enforce.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the rule before us today and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this undemocratic and paternalistic bill, which amends D.C. law. 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 D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, the entire D.C. Council, and D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb.

September 10, 2025.

Hon. James Corner,

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-part education

funding SOAR Act. I have long supported the program to expand

opportunity for DC students. However, my support has always

been contingent on parity among all three education sectors--

public, private, and charter--and this approach is working.

We will not support changes that tip the scales away from

this core principle of fairness for DC families. As the

fastest improving urban school system, DC has become a model

for urban education. We outpace the national average on all

tested subject areas. We boast free, full-day Pre-K access

serving more than 13,200 young learners--an investment which

supports our children and our workforce. DC ranked top of the

nation in parental satisfaction regarding school choice.

Mayoral control, council oversight, and deep, targeted

investments in our students, teachers, and buildings made

these remarkable achievements possible.

I look forward to continuing a productive partnership with

the Committee--one that respects the will of DC residents and

honors the principles of home rule. Together, we can build on

our successes while protecting the autonomy that, as history

reflects, has made our city stronger.

Sincerely,

Muriel Bowser,

Mayor.

Mr. Speaker, the D.C. local legislature, the Council, has 13 members. If D.C. residents do not like how members vote, residents can vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure. That is called democracy.

Congress has 535 voting Members. None are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how Members vote on local D.C. matters, residents cannot vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure. This is the antithesis of democracy.

The substance of this bill is irrelevant since there is never justification for Congress to legislate on local D.C. matters. Nevertheless, I will discuss it.

Vehicular pursuits by police officers are inherently dangerous not just for officers and suspects but for bystanders, too, and often there are other options to detain a suspect. D.C. permits vehicular pursuits, but it imposes limitations on them. According to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, vehicular pursuit policies must ``balance the risks, take all of the factors into consideration, and reach a decision that is best suited to their jurisdictions.'' Unlike D.C., 2 percent of local police departments prohibit vehicular pursuits altogether. The sponsor of this bill, who is from Louisiana, thinks he knows better than D.C. how to strike the proper balance in D.C.

I will read for my Republican colleagues part of the signing statement your fellow Republican, President Richard Nixon, issued on the D.C. 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.''

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.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter explaining why the D.C. statehood bill is constitutional from leading constitutional scholars, including Larry Tribe.

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 terms 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.

The D.C. statehood bill, H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act, grants D.C. residents full local self-government and voting representation in Congress. H.R. 51 reduces the size of the Federal District from 68 square miles to 2 square miles, consisting of the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, The National Mall and remaining under the control of Congress.

The new State consists of the residential and commercial areas of D.C. The new State has a larger population than two States, pays more Federal taxes per capita than any State, and pays more total Federal taxes than 21 States.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the D.C. Policing Protection Act, keep their hands off D.C. and free D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we just heard a whole lot of words from the gentleman from New York, but the bills before us today are yet another example of how backward Republican priorities are and how they are hurting this country, hurting the economic well-being of the people I represent, and hurting the economic

well-being of working people all over this country.

People are stressed about their budgets. They are worried about prices going up. They are scared they might lose their jobs. People are struggling to pay the bills and make ends meet, worried about saving for college for their kids and how they are going to deal with the exploding costs of healthcare.

Instead of addressing any of that, we are dealing with this. When we are not dealing with this, Republicans are obsessed with fighting culture wars. That is what they want 24/7: culture wars, culture wars, culture wars. Some of them are now proposing a new committee to investigate their political opponents, a new House un-American activities committee that would make Joe McCarthy blush. That is all this place is to Republicans: a venue for culture wars, a venue for legislation to further divide people and divide this country. Meanwhile, they do nothing, absolutely nothing for everyday people, nothing at all.

Actually, it is worse than nothing. They are actively trying to screw over regular people. Look no further than yesterday. Democrats tried to force a vote on Trump's tariffs, and nearly every Republican blocked it. Every one of them is now on record as supporting Trump's disastrous tariffs. They are not just ignoring the economy. They are making it worse.

For the other side, this is all about genuflecting to Donald Trump. It is all about power for the sake of power. It is not about the American people. It has never been about the American people for Republicans. It is about power, and they use that power to help the rich, the well-connected, and the well-off.

Four of these bills that we are going to be dealing with are about local issues in Washington, D.C., something none of my constituents have ever asked me about. For the record, 0.2 percent of the U.S. population lives in Washington, D.C., and Republicans want to get into the weeds about their local policing policies.

Do you know what my constituents ask me about? They don't ask me about local issues that affect Washington, D.C. They ask me about why their healthcare insurance premiums are going up. They ask me about prices going up because of Donald Trump's tariffs. They tell me they need more money in their pockets to make ends meet.

Yet, week after week, Republicans do nothing about healthcare and nothing about inflation. It is constant culture wars. It is constant giveaways to the rich and powerful. It is constant distractions.

One of the Republican bills that we are considering today reestablishes a coal council--not even establishes, reestablishes. Wow, that is really important, a coal council. Who the hell asked for that? A coal lobbyist?

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Energy already reestablished this stupid council months ago. It is apparently so important that President Trump hasn't even bothered to appoint anyone to it yet. If you look up their website, he still hasn't appointed anybody to the council. Go to the website.

This is stupid. We are wasting time by doing this. Energy prices are going up in this country, and this is the majority's response: reestablishing a coal council. You can't make this stuff up. This is laughable.

The other bills that Republicans are bringing forward today are giveaways to polluters who dump toxic chemicals into our air and water. Why? Follow the money. Did the CEO of ExxonMobil call Donald Trump and ask for a favor?

Mr. Speaker, all of these bills are a disgrace. The people we represent want us to address the real issues that we face every day. They want us to talk about the cost of living, healthcare, and fixing what is broken with this country's economic system.

Meanwhile, as we are gathering here to do this stuff, the clock is ticking toward a shutdown. Republicans control the House. They control the Senate. They control the White House. They should be able to fund the government, but they won't. They won't.

Let me be clear: Democrats are not going to stand by and do nothing while my Republican colleagues try to kick millions of people off their healthcare.

I hear that the Speaker of the House is saying that it is no big deal, that we will just kick the can down the road, deal with it sometime, maybe in December, and talk about it then.

Let me be clear. I will speak in ``See Spot Run'' language so that my Republican colleagues can understand. Mr. Speaker, the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, says that 1.5 million people--that is a lot of people--will lose their healthcare if we wait. People's premiums--that is, their monthly payments--will go way, way up because the insurance companies are making important decisions right now about how much to charge. We do not have time to wait.

Mr. Speaker, now that that is clear, Republicans have three choices: First, they can work with us in a bipartisan way to make sure it doesn't happen. Second, they could do what Trump said and pass the CR alone since they control government. Third, they can choose to shut the government down.

Those are the three options. Democrats are for keeping the government open, but we are not for passing legislation that tells millions of people who we represent, including sick people: Good luck. You are on your own. Best wishes.

We are not for that. If there is a shutdown, I say that Republicans own this. It is their shutdown. If Republicans would rather shut down the government than protect people's healthcare, then we do not share the same values.

I want to keep people on healthcare, not kick them off. I go home and ask people what they care about. I go to coffee shops and county fairs. I hold townhalls--something Republicans should try to do, by the way. Do you know what I hear from my constituents? They are sick and tired of those at the top getting ahead while they struggle to pay their bills.

They are sick and tired of Republicans in Congress passing bills to help the rich while everyone else has to breathe in dirty air and drink dirty water.

They are sick and tired of this culture war garbage and this weird obsession that Republicans have with micromanaging Washington, D.C. They want Republicans to leave Washington, D.C., the hell alone and focus on their own damned communities.

They are sick and tired of Republicans trying to kick people off of their healthcare to pay for taxes for multimillionaires and billionaires.

These are rotten bills. To top it all off, we have seven more completely closed rules with no amendments allowed. Take it or leave it from this Republican majority. I think we ought to leave it. These are terrible bills that are going to hurt the people we represent.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are protecting American families, my foot. You just passed this big, ugly bill that throws millions of people off of healthcare, that gives tax breaks to multimillionaires and billionaires, and then you accuse us of playing class warfare because we are trying to stick up for the middle class in this country, for working families. You can't call it class warfare when you are giving tax breaks to multimillionaires and billionaires while cutting people's healthcare benefits.

Let me just say for the record that in the gentleman's district, New York District 23, as of 2024, 6,000 people in his district received tax credits to help lower their monthly premium payments to make quality comprehensive health insurance coverage more affordable, and these tax credits are due to expire. These people are going to lose their healthcare or they are going to see their premiums go through the roof.

For a 60-year-old couple earning $82,800 a year in the gentleman's district, annual premiums would increase by $7,349. That is a 110 percent increase.

For a family of four earning $129,800 a year, ages 45 and up, the annual premium would increase by $17,741. That is a 172 percent increase.

For a family of four earning $64,000 a year, the annual premiums would increase by $2,571. That is a 369 percent increase.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know. I guess in his district his constituents don't care about that. According to him, they care more about micromanaging D.C.

In my district and in other districts that I know of in this country, people are worried about their healthcare costs, and we ought to do something about it. We shouldn't kick the can down the road so more and more people end up feeling the pain.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to strike sections 9, 10, and 11, which together block privileged consideration of measures ending the administration's global tariffs and tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and Brazil until March 31, 2026.

Mr. Speaker, President Trump made a campaign promise that he would lower prices ``on day one,'' yet Trump's disastrous trade war continues to increase the prices Americans are paying for food, for gas, and for other everyday goods.

According to independent estimates, Trump's current tariff regime is resulting in a $2,300 tax increase in 2025 alone for the average American household. Fruits, vegetables, beef, and coffee are just some of the products experiencing the highest price increases. Go to a supermarket for heaven's sake in your district and you will know what I am talking about.

This is not what the American people voted for. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that Trump's tariffs that he imposed under the guise of bogus emergencies are unlawful and that Congress, not the President, must make the calls when it comes to imposing new tariffs.

As we await the Supreme Court's decision, Congress should be voting on these tariffs and whether they should remain in place, but in the Republican rule, they are, again, blocking the Congress from taking a vote on whether we should keep or remove these emergency tariffs.

The President imposed huge tariffs on Canada and Mexico in February, global tariffs in April, and most recently, a 50 percent tariff on Brazil because he didn't like that his friend, Brazil's disgraced former President, was just tried and convicted of trying to overthrow a democratic election to stay in power.

Mr. Speaker, does that remind you of anyone, by the way?

The American people paid $30 billion in new tariff taxes in August alone, and Republicans are continuing to hide their heads in the sand.

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

Mr. Speaker, for God's sake, we ought to do our work. We ought to live up to our constitutional responsibility and debate and vote on these things. I am sorry that the President has instructed you to do nothing, but we ought to do something.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, to discuss our proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am confused by what the gentleman said. I don't know whether he supports the ACA tax credits or not. If he doesn't, then 6,000 of his constituents will be adversely impacted. If he does, then we should just fix it right now. By the way, Republicans all opposed the ACA when it came up, so I don't want to hear that garbage.

Don't blame the Senate. Donald Trump just said to Republicans over in the Senate: Do it on your own. I think what he is referring to was just last week Republicans nuked the filibuster when it comes to nominations. Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House. Basically what they are telling us is that they don't give a damn about working families in this country, and that is what is at stake here.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett.)

Mr. Speaker, you have got to love these Republicans. They spend more time talking about micromanaging 0.2 percent of the American population in D.C. and more worried about that than they are worried about the fact that over 99 percent of the American people are about to see their premiums go up. Millions of people are going to lose their healthcare. We just have a different set of priorities. We have a different set of priorities.

By the way, when we talk about national security, healthcare is part of it. If you don't have healthcare, you don't have security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned just a few moments ago, Republicans are blocking a vote on Trump's tariffs in this rule. I think it is pretty obvious why. The consequences of his economic policy are being felt in communities across this country, and Republicans know they can't defend it. That is why they are not doing townhalls.

Moms and dads are coming home with pink slips because their employers don't know if they can keep the doors open. Small businesses are shuttering. Farmers are struggling under higher input costs and shrinking markets.

Food, gas, electricity, basic goods and services--the prices are all up. They are likely to climb even higher as Trump's tariffs ripple through the supply chain. It is clear that the Trump economy is not working for average Americans.

President Trump and Republicans promised to reduce inflation. Instead, last month, we saw the largest monthly increase in inflation since January.

They promised to reduce grocery prices. Instead, last month, grocery prices spiked at the fastest pace in 3 years, driven in part by tariff- fueled costs.

They promised to cut electricity prices in half. Instead, August electricity prices were 6 percent higher than they were a year ago, and Americans are having to navigate a weakening job market and rising costs.

Fruits and vegetables are up nearly 2 percent. Dairy products are up 1.3 percent. Cereal and bread are up 1.1 percent. Meat, poultry, fish, and eggs are all up a whopping 5.6 percent. Give me a break.

Mr. Speaker, let's be frank. The only winners in Trump's economy are millionaires and billionaires. He packed his Cabinet with the rich and well-connected. Republicans' reconciliation bill hands out nearly $100,000 in tax cuts for those making over a million dollars a year in 2027 alone.

Just last week, the Trump administration started rolling back efforts to crack down on offshore tax shelters that billionaires and giant corporations use to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Who does that?

Mr. Speaker, Trump promised an economy for the American people, but time and time again, his tariffs and policies have only delivered for the ultrarich, while families, farmers, and small businesses pay the price. We ought to be voting on this stuff.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman talking about the reconciliation bill that the Republicans brought to the floor that resulted in trillions and trillions of dollars and more debt, all to give multimillionaires and multibillionaires a tax cut? I mean, I am sorry. If there is class warfare going on here, I know which side my Republican friends are on.

Mr. Speaker, millions of everyday Americans all across the country are about to get notice that their healthcare premiums are going to skyrocket, including in the gentleman's district. Moms, dads, and grandparents, people working two jobs just to get by, are going to be at their kitchen tables, facing the awful decision of which bills to pay.

For nearly 24 million people in this country who have ACA marketplace health insurance, premiums will increase, on average, by 93 percent. A 60-year-old couple making $80,000 per year will see their premiums increase by over $17,000 per year. That is like $1,400 per month. A family of four earning $64,000 will owe an extra $2,600 in healthcare premiums every year.

Where on Earth are families supposed to find this kind of extra money, Mr. Speaker? We are talking hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. That is not extra change that you can find in your couch cushion.

It will mean 5 million people, including 2 million with chronic conditions, lose their healthcare coverage altogether.

It will mean older adults have to choose between paying their high energy bills and affording their healthcare.

It will mean families going without food because their healthcare premiums are unaffordable.

It will mean people fall behind on their rent just so they can afford basic healthcare in the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the world.

This is a crisis, Mr. Speaker. It is a crisis of the Republicans' own making. Instead of spending the summer working with Democrats to address this looming healthcare cliff, Republicans spent it instead slashing Medicaid by a trillion dollars, kicking 15 million people off their coverage altogether, blocking access to cancer screening and prenatal care by defunding Planned Parenthood, cutting NIH's budget, and taking food away from families with teenagers, veterans, and older adults, which will make them less healthy, all to give tax breaks to Elon Musk and Trump's billionaire friends.

Honest to God, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what to say to the working families who visit my office scared to death that their healthcare costs are going to force them to go broke.

I don't know how my Republican friends can talk to people back home in their districts, regular people, hardworking people, and somehow justify what they are doing. I guess many of them don't because they don't do townhalls.

With all due respect to the Speaker of the House, no, this actually cannot wait. I understand why they are trying to minimize the crisis that they created, I really do, but hardworking people back home are counting on us, Mr. Speaker.

Congress must address this looming healthcare crisis now, including one of the most significant healthcare premium hikes in history, and the historic cuts to Medicaid that are closing hospitals and nursing homes on a daily basis, to give families peace of mind that they won't go bankrupt trying to afford their healthcare.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time I have remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am losing my voice but not my passion.

Mr. Speaker, the truth is simple. Families are being crushed by high prices. Rent, groceries, gas, and healthcare are all going up.

What are Republicans doing? They are obsessed with micromanaging Washington, D.C., with not one, not two, not three, but four different bills today about Washington, D.C.

I hate to break it to Republicans, but none of the people whom I represent, and I think none of the people from the gentleman's district, live in Washington, D.C., which leads me to wonder why the hell Republicans are wasting time on this nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, the other bills that we are dealing with hand out favors to Big Coal and Big Oil. Again, there is nothing for regular families from these guys. There is nothing for average Americans. They have no vision and no plan for economic growth.

The bottom line is that healthcare premiums are about to go through the roof. People will see their healthcare bills explode because these guys refuse to act.

Republicans are putting ideology over everyday people. They are putting headlines over solutions. They are playing games instead of governing.

All of this--micromanaging D.C. and the coal commission garbage--is what the Republicans are focused on while the government teeters on the edge of a shutdown, while Trump's tariffs drive up prices, and while millions of people are about to get kicked off their health insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding, and I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's bill.

I appreciate my colleague from Louisiana. We have had a chance to serve together on committees. I know he has a strong respect for law enforcement, so I am not saying his heart is in the wrong place, but I am saying this bill is wrong. I say that from personal experience.

He is right, I was never in an active car pursuit, but I was a prosecutor here in Washington, D.C., and for 8 years in Prince George's County, which is the eastern border of Washington, D.C., so I have seen the results of some of these high-speed chases.

The bill that is drafted, that he has proposed, actually takes away a reasonable balance that was drawn by the people here of the District of Columbia, as is their right for a democracy.

Also, one of the things we need to keep in mind, and my colleague addressed this kind of briefly but, frankly, skipped over it, what happens when that chase leads to the death of innocent civilians?

When the gentleman said he had been in 100 car chases, a chill went through my body, I have to say, because I have seen the results, the deadly consequences of some of these car chases. When you have to go talk to that family and tell them why their loved ones died, you don't want to have to say that it was over something minor like a stolen car.

The balance that the city struck was that it should be for an imminent violent offense, high-level felony, something like that that you really understand why they would have engaged in the pursuit. This bill would take that away and expand it open so that you could have high-speed chases taking place with respect to misdemeanors.

This isn't a hypothetical for me. When I was the State's attorney in Prince George's County, we actually had one of these. We had several, but I will just pick one for purposes of time. A police officer saw a stolen motorcycle zip down the beltway and decided to pursue it. Stealing a motorcycle is a misdemeanor and speeding is a misdemeanor, but he decided to pursue it anyway.

Mind you, this is during rush hour, so he had to pursue on the border of the road, and speeds got up to over 100 miles an hour on the beltway in rush hour. Of course, it is hard for a car to catch a motorcycle, especially when it can weave in and out of traffic.

He didn't make the apprehension, but what he did do as he was speeding along on the side of the road at 100-plus miles an hour was come across debris on the road, and he tried to swerve to avoid it. When he did that, the car jumped over the Jersey barrier between the two lanes and took him into the opposite lane of oncoming traffic.

The car jumped over, hit the top of a car coming the opposite direction, and killed two men on their way to a concert. They had nothing to do with any kind of high-speed chase. They didn't have anything to do with any kind of criminal activity. These were people who were good folks, actually just visiting in the area--one was from Buffalo--who died because of a high-speed chase over a minor misdemeanor. That doesn't make any sense. It is not like that only happens in Prince George's County.

Here in Washington, D.C., we had a similar kind of case. It was back in 2016. It led up to a deadly chase on East Capitol and Benning Road. The chases the gentleman was talking about, maybe those were rural areas, but those are high-traffic areas even in the nighttime. Sometimes these pursuits take place during the day.

This led to the death of an innocent man. This was over a stolen car. Think about what you would say to that family when you are explaining to them that their father, brother, or son lost his life over a stolen car.

Then the other part that influences me--again, I represent Prince George's

County now--but sometimes when they start high-speed chases in D.C., they go into Prince George's County, Montgomery County, or Northern Virginia, and we lost someone during a high-speed chase on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway; another stolen car case.

When we make these decisions about when a chase is permitted or should be permitted or not, we need to keep in mind that there can be deadly consequences from when this happens, and it frequently occurs. It is not like this is unusual. The Washington Post just did a piece about the Park Police. There have been 10 of these instances in recent weeks.

I have a couple last points. One is liability. The Federal Government is going to put this burden on the city.

When that liability arises from a car chase ending in death that didn't make any sense to a jury, the city could be on the hook for millions of dollars. I guarantee they are not going to step in and have the Federal Government cover that for them. When we think about these things, we need to keep all of those things in mind.

The last point I will make, a variation on the home rule argument. D.C. is not a rural jurisdiction. In fact, its roads aren't even as straightforward as Manhattan. We have got diagonal roads that cut across, we have circles, and we have very dangerous intersections. I wish my colleagues knew how tricky it can be out there. A high-speed chase in the middle of the District of Columbia, even during the middle of the day is almost, by definition, dangerous almost under any circumstances, so you better have a really good reason to engage in a pursuit like that.

That is not the balance that is drawn by this bill. That is not the balance that was drawn by the people of the District of Columbia. It should be the balance, and they should make the call because when the deaths happen, my colleagues won't be anywhere to be found.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee for recognizing me and allowing me to speak in support of H.R. 5143, the District of Columbia Policing Protection Act.

As a matter of background, Mr. Speaker, in January 2023, the D.C. Council enacted the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, the CPJRA Act, D.C. Law 24-345, among numerous other police-related policy matters, most of which we advised against in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. We met with D.C. officials, including in hearings, and we advised against what they intended to do.

Mr. Speaker, included in those police-related policy matters in the act that they, indeed, passed in 2022 was subtitle S of the CPJRA, which imposed a host of restrictions on police pursuit of criminal suspects.

In doing so, the D.C. Council essentially made it illegal for police to pursue and apprehend criminals if they were fleeing in a vehicle by imposing a complex matrix of 14 factors that police officers have to consider for whether or not they would pursue a fleeing vehicle.

I speak from my own experience as a police officer. I have been, very likely, the only one involved in this debate for several years who has actually engaged in high-speed chases. I tried to add it up the other day, but I probably have engaged in a couple of hundred serious high- speed pursuits in the course of my career. I worked night shift for a long time, 9 years straight, 12-hour shifts. Night shift is when this stuff usually happens.

I am not talking about when someone doesn't stop right away. That is not a high-speed pursuit. Having to drive 100 miles an hour to catch up with somebody that you are pulling over is not a high-speed pursuit.

A high-speed pursuit is when they are running. This is something where the officer has to make very fast decisions, Mr. Speaker. Yes, we consider the totality of circumstances of where we are: Is that a suspect vehicle? Does it match a definition of something that has been put out through dispatch of a vehicle that we are looking for? Has it potentially been involved in a crime that requires police interaction in an effort to enforce and address that crime that took place?

There are a number of factors that a police officer has to figure, but it has to be an option that you can pursue that car.

What D.C. has done, one of the factors, Mr. Speaker, is if anyone in the suspect motor vehicle was afforded an opportunity to comply with an order to surrender any suspected dangerous weapons.

What the hell? There is no way a police officer can know that. There are too many factors, which basically means D.C. has made it illegal for police to pursue a vehicle.

That is what we are correcting here. We are restoring the discretion of the professional law enforcement officer to make a decision in a fraction of a second or two based upon his policies and training and the totality of circumstances of whether or not he needs to pursue that vehicle.

This is what my bill restores. The legislation repeals subtitle S of the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 and replaces it with policies empowering police to make vehicular pursuit of a suspect fleeing in a motor vehicle if the officer or supervisor deems it necessary, that it is the most effective means of apprehension, and if it is without unreasonable risk to bystanders.

Let me say, in all of my vehicle pursuits, there have been a few crashes, but nobody has died. The only crash that I have ever been involved in during those pursuits was when I purposefully crashed the fleeing vehicle, which was the guy who had committed an armed robbery at a local hardware store, had pistol-whipped the manager of that store, made it to his car, and fired at officers.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time yielded and the indulgence of the chairman. I urge strong support of H.R. 5143. It restores legitimate discretion to the police officers who actually work the streets of D.C.

Mr. Speaker, let me just diplomatically address a couple of the accusations here regarding the nature of my bill.

The gentlewoman acknowledged that there is danger involved, yes. Yes, enforcing the law is dangerous. This is why the professional law enforcement officers across the country, including here in D.C., are incredibly well vetted and trained and equipped to make decisions in a matter of seconds or less to pursue criminals and to enforce the law.

It is dangerous work. It is dangerous for the officer. It can result in injury or death for the criminal. It can result in injury or death for innocent Americans, but let us never forget that the interaction was initiated by the criminal. Mr. Speaker, enforcing the law is dangerous work.

What is more dangerous, Mr. Speaker, is failure to enforce the law. What is more dangerous for every community, including our Nation's Capital, for which this body has a responsibility to stand, is failure to give discretion for enforcement of law to the very law enforcement professionals that you have trained and equipped and placed on the streets. To not allow those professionals to make decisions and enforce a law, that is incredibly dangerous.

My bill stands on the side of the citizenry of D.C. in an effort to enforce the law by fully empowering the police officers of D.C. to engage criminal conduct and enforce the law.