Floor Statements

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, 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 led by The Leadership Conference on Civil an Human Rights.

The Leadership Conference on

Civil and Human Rights,

Washington, DC, November 19, 2025.

Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference

on Civil and Human Rights and the undersigned organizations,

we write to express our strong opposition to H.R. 5107, the

``Common-Sense Law Enforcement and Accountability Now in D.C.

(CLEAN DC) Act of 2025, and to H.R. 5214 the D.C. Cash Bail

Reform Act.

H.R. 5107 would largely overturn the District of Columbia's

Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act

(CPJRAA) of 2022, while H.R. 5214 would require mandatory

pretrial detention and cash bail for an arbitrary overly

broad list of offenses.

These bills are part of a long line of attacks on democracy

in the District of Columbia. D.C. citizens pay federal taxes

and comply with all the other duties of residence, yet they

are deprived of not only any voting representation in

Congress, but also of control over their own local

governance. With these votes, Congress would yet again

micromanage the affairs of the District and relegate the more

than 700,000 residents of D.C. to second-class citizenship--

and without a single vote representing D.C.

D.C. autonomy and D.C. statehood are civil rights and

racial justice issues. D.C. residents deserve the same tight

as residents from any U.S. state to decide the laws that are

best for their communities. It remains painfully clear that

the right to vote is meaningless if the will of D.C.

residents can be overturned by a Congress that gives them no

say in the matter. Congress must listen to Mayor Bowser and

the D.C. Council and reject this attempt to roll back duly

passed D.C. legislation.

Washingtonians are best situated to address police reform

policies in their own community and deserve to determine

these policies without congressional interference. The CPJRAA

includes commonsense reforms to increase police

accountability and government transparency, and it directly

responds to the calls from District communities for

additional law enforcement oversight. Many of the reforms in

this bill echo provisions in the George Floyd Justice in

Policing Act, as well as President Biden's executive orders

on policing--including improving access to body-worn camera

recordings, restricting access to military-grade weapons, and

creating a public discipline database of information related

to sustained allegations of police misconduct. D.C., like

many other jurisdictions, initially passed these reforms in

response to the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor

and the need to enact systemic police reform. In the wake of

the deployment of the National Guard and surge of federal law

enforcement in D.C., there has been an increase in instances

of police brutality and unwarranted searches. Congress must

not block D.C. from heeding the calls of its residents by

rescinding police oversight law.

Legislation like the CPJRAA is not anti-police, rather it

helps restore public confidence in law enforcement both by

deterring abuses of power and demonstrating that law

enforcement is not above the law. Holding police officers

accountable for violating the law does not lead to an

increase in crime in fact, D.C. saw a 30-year low in violent

crime in 2024, after the CPJRAA was enacted. Between 2010 and

2020, Washington, D.C. paid out more than $91 million in

police misconduct settlements. Yet, according to an audit,

between 2015 and 2021, D.C. was forced to rehire 37

Metropolitan Police Department officers who were fired due to

sustained misconduct allegations, with the city awarding them

more than $14.3 million in back pay. Police oversight is

crucial to preventing and holding officers accountable for

misconduct against the very people they have sworn to

protect.

H.R. 5214 proposes drastic, harmful changes to D.C.'s

pretrial laws, which ensure that pretrial release decisions

are based on assessments of true risk, rather than wealth. It

would impose mandatory pretrial jailing of people who are

simply accused of certain offenses, a change that is flatly

unconstitutional. Its requirement of cash bail for other

offenses would have a devastating impact on

low-income people who are also simply accused. These changes

would swing the door wide open to abuses, and they would

disproportionately impact people of color.

These bills and other attacks on D.C.'s autonomy are

emblematic of larger efforts to allow state and federal

legislatures to exert control and authority over Black

localities and roll back democratically authorized criminal-

legal and police reforms. We call on you to fight this trend

and vote NO on H.R. 5107 and H.R. 5214. If you have any

questions, please feel free to contact Rob Randhava of The

Leadership Conference or Nicole Zayas Manzano of The Bail

Project.

Sincerely,

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The

Bail Project, Advancement Project, Black Voters Matter Fund,

Center for Policing Equity (CPE), DC Vote, Human Rights

Campaign, Interfaith Alliance, Juvenile Law Center.

National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good

Shepherd, National Council of Churches, National Education

Association, National Organization for Women, NCNW, Pax

Christi USA, Prison Policy Initiative, St. Joseph Justice

Center--A Ministy of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange,

Vera Insitute of Justice.

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 NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

Legal Defense Fund,

November 18, 2025.

Re ``Vote No'' on H.R. 5107 and H.R. 5214.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker of the House,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

House Minority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: The

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) strongly

opposes The Common Sense Law Enforcement and Accountability

in D.C. Now Act (H.R. 5107), and The D.C. Cash Bail Reform

Act (H.R. 5214). These bills will make the District of

Columbia (D.C. or the District) less safe and just.

Congresses must cease these repeated attempts--against the

will of D.C. residents and locally elected leadership--to

override D.C. laws that were enacted by and for the District.

We urge all members to ``Vote No'' on these harmful bills.

Commonsense policing reforms have not hindered historic low crime rates

in D.C.

H.R. 5107 would strike down, without sufficient

justification, the majority of Comprehensive Policing and

Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 (CPJRAA), which enacted

police transparency and accountability measures informed by

the recommendations of the D.C. Police Reform Commission, a

body of retired law enforcement, community leaders, experts,

and directly impacted residents. While only two years of

crime data is available since the implementation of the

CPJRAA, that data shows drops in violent crime each year

following the passage of the law in 2024 and again in 2025.

Therefore, the CPJRAA's passage, at a minimum, had no

negative impact on public safety in D.C. In fact, after the

CPJRAA was enacted, D.C. saw a 30-year low in violent crime

and thus the law is associated with MPD's successful crime

reduction efforts.

The 2022 D.C. statute also includes measures D.C. residents

deemed important such as mandatory public release of body

worn camera footage within five days of officer-involved

deaths or serious bodily injury, strengthened civilian

oversight of police use of force, limitations on consent

searches, requiring additional law enforcement training on

racial bias and de-escalation tactics, the creation of public

databases of sustained officer misconduct cases, and the

prohibition of the possession or acquisition of military

weapons by law enforcement agencies.

Historically criminal justice laws and policies have been

determined by local jurisdiction based on their specific

needs. Several other jurisdictions have enacted policies

similar to those in the CPJRAA. States across the country

have enacted policies like these because many believe that

holding law enforcement accountable for abuse of power and

racial bias can deter misconduct. Some jurisdictions have

seen reduction of crime after holding law enforcement

accountable for violating the law and their department

policies.

Moreover, the power provided through the CPJRAA to remove

disciplinary matters from collective bargaining was much-

needed. Before the law's enactment, a 2022 report from the

Office of the District of Columbia Auditor found that the

reinstatement of 36 fired Metropolitan Police Department D.C.

(MPD) officers had cost the city $14.3 million in back pay.

Notably, 15 of the reinstated officers had been terminated

for misconduct classified as a ``threat to safety'' which

includes cases when an officer imposed risk or harm to

people, through action or inaction, including physical or

sexual violence and mishandling firearms. The CPJRAA, by

excluding disciplinary matters from collective bargaining,

offered an opportunity to improve MPD's accountability system

which benefits the public and officers alike. The

reinstatement of ``bad cops'' has also been shown to

demoralize officers who observe their colleagues return to

the force despite their failure to abide by policies or laws.

Without due process mandatory pretrial detention jeopardizes liberty

H.R. 5214 would reinstitute cash bail and create mandatory

detention for a person charged with certain offenses before

even going to trial. Requiring a person merely charged with

an offense to be detained pretrial with no opportunity for a

hearing to challenge the detention raises serious due process

concerns, as there is no opportunity for the court to

determine if this serious deprivation of liberty is

justified. This legislation would significantly change the

system D.C. has had in place since 1992, that has produced

higher appearance rates than the national average without

wealth-based pretrial detention. Between 1990 and 2009 the

number of people charged with an offense who received cash

bail jumped from 37 percent to 61 percent. Cash bail has,

historically, disproportionately impacted low-income Black

communities while disparities in the Black-white wealth gap

persists amidst racially discriminatory policies that have

not been

fully addressed. Overall Black and Brown defendants are 10-25

percent more likely than white defendants to be held

pretrial, and that number skyrockets to 50 percent for young

Black men compared with white defendants. Not only would

Black men be placed in pretrial detention at a

disproportionate rate, but in 2022, The U.S. Commission on

Civil Rights found that Black men received bail amounts 35

percent higher than white men and 16 percent higher than

Latino men. The presence of cash bail destabilizes people's

lives, with pretrial detention increasing the probability of

both being convicted and being imprisoned, and contributes to

the cycle of limiting upward mobility for Black people in

D.C. by potentially hindering employment while jailed.

Further, the rationale behind reinstituting cash bail is to

protect public safety by ensuring that law enforcement is not

forced to repeatedly arrest the same ``dangerous

individuals.'' However, in D.C., of the 88 percent of

individuals who are released before trial, 89 percent remain

arrest-free, with only 1 percent arrested for a violent

crime. Nationwide, this trend is consistent, with no

statistically significant link between bail reform and

increases in crime. In fact, data shows that placing someone

in pre-trial detention for any length of time actually

increases the likelihood that they will be re-arrested and

sentenced to prison in the future. As a result, H.R. 5214

will not live up to its purpose, and will instead, create

further barriers for the low-income Black community in D.C.

We all want our communities to feel safe for all who reside

and visit, and the District of Columbia is no different. The

changes proposed by these bills have proven to be ineffective

in deterring crime and will only further the loss of key

community resources. Additionally, data shows that members of

the D.C. community know best when addressing criminal justice

policies within their community. They deserve the right to

determine their own policies and laws. We strongly urge all

members to vote ``NO'' on H.R. 5107, and H.R. 5214. If you

have any questions, please contact Kristina Roth, Senior

Policy Associate.

Sincerely,

Kristina M. Roth,

Senior Policy Associate, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational

Fund, Inc., Washington, DC.

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 led by Free DC.

Free DC,

November 17, 2025.

Dear Representative: There are currently six bills queued

up for floor votes in the House attacking the District of

Columbia. These bills would severely erode DC's already

limited control over its criminal justice system and leave

individuals and organizations in DC at the mercy of this

administration as they continue implementing an authoritarian

agenda. These bills would roll back evidence-based criminal

justice reforms passed by the duly elected DC Council,

introduce new punitive measures that would harm DC residents,

and grant the president even more direct control over DC

government. We, the undersigned national organizations, urge

you and all House members to be strong allies to DC and

oppose all these bills.

We have seen what the Trump administration's interference

in local law enforcement has done so far. Communities have

been terrorized by federal agents' race-based targeting of

residents and National Guard soldiers carrying weapons of war

in DC streets.

Trump's appointee for U.S. Attorney for DC, Jeanine Pirro,

has repeatedly had frivolous charges rejected by grand and

petit juries. Now Trump and his allies in Congress will

attempt to remove DC's locally elected Attorney General and

appoint a lackey in his place. This would give Trump power

over not only DC's juvenile justice system, but also civil

prosecution against perceived enemies. These bills would

enable the Trump administration to attack any and all

entities in DC, from individuals to advocacy organizations to

labor unions and more. We therefore call on the House to

reject all six bills:

OPPOSE H.R. 5214, the District of Columbia Cash Bail Reform

Act, introduced by Rep. Stefanik, that would increase pre-

trial detention and require cash bail for a range of alleged

offenses. Calendar No 269.

OPPOSE H.R. 5179, the District of Columbia Attorney General

Appointment Reform Act, introduced by Rep. Fallon, that would

remove DC's elected Attorney General and grant the President

sole authority to nominate a replacement. Calendar No. 270.

OPPOSE H.R. 5107/S. 2687, the CLEAN DC Act, introduced by

Rep. Clyde and Sen. Cruz, that would repeal the Comprehensive

Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022. Calendar

No. 271.

OPPOSE H.R. 5172, the Strong Sentences for Safer D.C.

Streets Act, introduced by Rep. Biggs, that would increase or

establish mandatory minimum sentences for a number of

offenses, and remove the exception for minors. Calendar No.

279.

OPPOSE H.R. 5242/S. 2815, to repeal D.C.'s Incarceration

Reduction Amendment Act of 2016 and the Second Chance

Amendment Act of 2022, introduced by Rep. Kustoff and Sen.

Cornyn. An amendment was added to this bill in committee that

would prohibit automated traffic enforcement in DC and undo

the no-right-on-red traffic safety law. Calendar No. 293.

OPPOSE H.R. 5163, the Clean and Managed Public Spaces Act,

that would prohibit camping on public property in DC and

effectively criminalize homelessness, introduced by Rep.

Timmons. Calendar No. 294.

These six bills are only the most imminent threats facing

DC in the House. Many more bills and appropriations riders

are in the pipeline. In solidarity with the people of the

District of Columbia and our national democracy, we, the

undersigned, call on you to side with DC and oppose every

bill and rider that seeks to prohibit, restrict, or undo DC's

laws, and co-sponsor and support all bills that seek to

expand DC's local power.

DC needs more local power--not more attacks. The 700,000

people who live in DC deserve the same rights and dignity as

the people in your home district. No democracy will be able

to function in the United States if the capital city is under

military control, cannot pass or enact its own basic laws,

and is subject to anti-democratic interference against the

will of the people.

Thank you for your attention and swift action on this

matter.

Sincerely,

Free DC and, American Federation of Teachers, Bend the Arc:

Jewish Action, Black Voters Matter Fund, DC Vote, Friends of

the Earth U.S., Greenpeace USA, Indivisible, Metropolitan

Washington Council, AFL-CIO, More Than Our Crimes, Movement

for Black Lives, Movement for Freedom.

National Association of Social Workers, National Education

Association, National Women's Law Center, NETWORK Lobby for

Catholic Social Justice, People For the American Way, People

Power United, Public Citizen, Seed the Vote Action, SEIU,

Stand Up America, The Workers Circle, Voices for Progress,

50501 Movement.

To learn more about Free DC, the renewed campaign for DC

autonomy, visit freedcproject.org. For follow up questions or

additional information to inform your votes, contact Free

DC's Congress Working Group Co-chairs, Michelle Chappell and

Jacqueline Johnson.

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 led by the American Civil Liberties Union.

November 18, 2025.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries: On behalf of the

ACLU, ACLU DC, National Urban League, and The Bail Project we

write to express our opposition to the D.C. Cash Bail Reform

Act (H.R. 5214) and the Common Sense Law Enforcement and

Accountability in D.C. Now Act (H.R. 5107).

We urge all Members to ``Vote NO'' on H.R. 5214 and H.R.

5107. The ACLU will score these votes.

The D.C. Cash Bail Reform Act

H.R. 5214, the DC Cash Bail Reform Act, requires mandatory

detention on a wide range of cases and is almost certainly

unconstitutional under the requirements set out by the

Supreme Court in United States v. Salerno. This bill would

reverse more than 30 years of successful, data-driven

pretrial policy reforms in D.C. and replace it with a wealth

based system that fuels mass incarceration, racial

disparities, and benefits the 2 billion dollar bail industry.

D.C.'s pre-trial system is grounded in individual

assessment, not based on wealth. The federal Pretrial

Services Agency for the District of Columbia evaluates each

person's likelihood of appearing in court and assesses

individualized conditions of release to support community

safety. The results of D.C.'s current risk and safety based

pretrial system outperform most cash-bail jurisdictions in

the country. Ninety-two percent of people released pretrial

in D.C. remain arrest-free before trial, 87% appear for their

court dates, and 86% complete the pretrial period without any

compliance violation.

H.R. 5214 would replace D.C.'s current risk and safety

based system with a cash bail system that requires mandatory

detention for a wide range of conduct. Cash bail would

disproportionately harm Black D.C. residents. Nearly 90% of

the D.C. jail population and 80% of the people released

through the Pretrial Services Agency are Black, due to

systemic overpolicing. Abolishing D.C.'s pre-trial system

which balances risk and safety and on an individualized

basis, and replacing it with a cash bail system which favors

release for wealthy defendants and imprisons those who cannot

afford bail, would deepen existing racial disparities and

disproportionately separate Black families from their

communities, jobs, and housing.

The District of Columbia has operated a successful risk and

safety based system for more than three decades. These

policies were informed by input from local stakeholders

including courts, prosecutors, police, and community members.

Congress should not override the local policy making process

of D.C. stakeholders and the will of D.C. residents and

democratically elected leaders.

A pre-trial system that relies on regular check-ins,

targeted social-service referrals, and text message reminders

consistently outperforms cash bail systems at securing

appearance and protecting public safety. Maintaining housing,

employment, child-care, and medical care substantially

reduces recidivism and promotes community safety. D.C.'s

current pre-trial system is a calibrated approach to public

safety that appropriately weighs public safety risks while

also considering the need of individuals to maintain critical

supports such as housing and employment on a case by case

basis. In contrast, H.R. 5214 would implement a cash bail

system that would financially ruin many of D.C.'s lower

income families, force many parents, disproportionately women

and Black women, out of the workforce, and expose children to

the well-documented harms of parental detention, all of which

increase long-term risks to public safety and community

wellbeing. The D.C. Cash Bail Reform Act will harm D.C.

residents and will not make D.C. safer because it ignores the

evidence and data on pretrial detention and thirty years of

local input and governance.

The Common Sense Law Enforcement and Accountability in D.C. Now Act

H.R. 5107, the Common Sense Law Enforcement and

Accountability in D.C. Now Act, would repeal D.C.'s

Comprehensive Policing

and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 (CPJRAA), which

enacted several recommendations to improve public safety,

accountability, and trust. These recommendations came from

the D.C. Police Reform Commission, a body of retired law

enforcement, community leaders, experts, and directly

impacted residents. Among the critical provisions that H.R.

5107 would repeal are reforms to officer discipline

processes. These reforms were recommended after several

officers in D.C. were reinstated despite major misconduct

including sexual assault and domestic violence. D.C.

residents, D.C. police chiefs, and the D.C. Auditor all

opposed the laws that H.R. 5107 would reimpose, which allowed

police to keep their jobs even when they committed a crime or

broke the law. As the D.C. Auditor reported, ``MPD management

expressed frustration over the reinstatement of `bad cops'

and concern that MPD officers are demoralized when their

colleagues are reinstated despite breaking the rules. They

suggested that officers may be more likely to engage in

misconduct when they believe they have a good chance of

overturning any resulting discipline.''

H.R. 5107 would also repeal many other common-sense reforms

of D.C.'s laws that have been adopted across the country,

including:

Timely and thorough investigation of incidents that involve

deadly use of force by an officer or a death in custody.

Release of body camera footage in cases of serious bodily

injury or death in custody.

Background checks so only highly qualified officers are

hired, and those who engage in misconduct cannot simply leave

one jurisdiction to be hired in another.

With appropriate safeguards and limits, preservation and

dissemination of officer disciplinary records that are

subject to open records requests.

Strengthening use of force review boards.

Increased training, as well as clearer guidance on use of

force.

Limiting the possession or use of certain military-grade

equipment by law enforcement agencies.

H.R, 5107 would repeal a locally approved law that provides

transparency and accountability for police misconduct and

promotes community safety.

For these reasons, the ACLU, ACLU DC, National Urban

League, and The Bail Project strongly urge Members to vote NO

on H.R. 5214, the DC Cash Bail Reform Act, and vote NO on

H.R. 5107, the Common Sense Law Enforcement and

Accountability in D.C. If you have any questions, please

contact Nina Patel, Senior Policy Counsel ACLU Justice

Division.

Sincerely,

American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties

Union of the District of Columbia, The Bail Project, National

Urban League.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives debated the District

of Columbia Cash Bail Reform Act of 2025 (H.R. 5214). I include in the Record a letter opposing this bill led by Tzedek DC.

November 18, 2025.

Hon. John Thune,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Chuck Schumer,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

House Minority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Dear Leader Thune, Minority Leader Schumer, Speaker

Johnson, and Minority Leader Jeffries: We, the undersigned,

non-partisan, nonprofit organizations and individual

Americans, urge Congress to reject H.R. 5214, the District of

Columbia Cash Bail Reform Act of 2025, which was recently

voted out of Committee by the House Oversight Committee. The

bill would force DC to adopt a cash bail system and introduce

new categories of offenses requiring mandatory pretrial

detention. These changes would require many people arrested

in DC to provide cash or other forms of property as

collateral for release before their trial. They would also

remove judicial discretion to determine whether a person can

be safely released, and if so, under what conditions. If H.R.

5214 (or its substance) is enacted, DC residents who are

legally innocent and who present no danger to the community

would be held in jail solely because they cannot afford to

pay. Meanwhile, wealthier defendants could simply buy their

freedom. This approach would displace and worsen DC's current

system, which, as detailed below, has been effective and

focused on public safety. Congress should, on a bipartisan

basis, soundly reject the approach of this bill.

All of us who have signed this letter care deeply about the

safety of our neighborhoods and the well-being of the

District of Columbia. We grieve when there is a crime that

harms a member of our community or someone visiting our

Nation's Capital. It is because of that care and commitment

that we all come together to reject the proposed legislation,

as those changes to DC's local court's risk-based assessments

will ultimately make our Nation's Capital less safe.

In 1992, the DC Council, DC's elected legislative branch

under the Home Rule system established by Congress, found

after extensive hearings that cash bail was harming, not

helping, public safety. The Council adopted a system that,

mirroring federal bail laws, removes wealth from the decision

to release or detain someone pretrial. Under DC law, pretrial

release considers whether the individual may pose a danger to

the community or fail to return to court. This assessment is

based on risk factors such as criminal background, threats to

victims, and past failures to appear in court or otherwise

abide by pretrial release conditions People on pretrial

release are supervised by the Pretrial Services Agency (PSA).

PSA officers meet regularly with those on pretrial release

and, when appropriate, provide connections to services, such

as mental health and drug treatment, and can remand people to

jail custody if people are not meeting their supervision

conditions. These factors prioritize safety. For three

decades, DC's approach has kept appearance rates high and new

offenses low.

Like Americans around the country, DC residents do not want

violent crime in their community. But risk-based detention

systems (sometimes confusingly referred to as ``cashless

bail'') do not cause or increase crime. The data on this is

clear. A study conducted by the DC Criminal Justice

Coordinating Council found that in a recent six-month period,

not a single person released after being charged with a

violent or dangerous crime was rearrested for a violent or

dangerous crime during their pretrial release. Similarly,

data from the Pretrial Services Agency for DC (a federal

agency) from the most recent nine months available shows that

of the defendants released before their trial, only 1.20%

have been rearrested for a violent crime, a 98.8% success

rate on this metric.

National data reinforces the point that cash bail does not help make us safer. A 2024 Brennan Center for Justice study found ``no statistically significant difference in crime rates between cities that reformed their bail policies and those that did not.'' Similarly, after Harris County, Texas ended cash bail for most misdemeanors, the result was ``no corresponding increase in violent crime. After New Jersey implemented bipartisan bail reforms, violent crime declined while the jail population shrank significantly. A 2023 John Jay College of Criminal Justice report found that eliminating cash bail for misdemeanors in New York cut recidivism by nearly 50 percent. In contrast, people jailed in cash bail systems suffer worse outcomes-- like lower employment rates, lack of housing, and loss of family connections--for years into the future. This places them at a higher risk of recidivism. A study commissioned by Arnold Ventures looking at the impact of pretrial detention on 1.4 million people booked through a jail system over a decade found just one day in jail increases a person's likelihood of being arrested in the future.

Beyond the financial and familial losses suffered by

pretrial detainees, there is a very real threat to physical

well-being. Nationally, pretrial detention is the riskiest

phase for in-custody deaths, and DC Jail is already unsafe.

Even before the recent wave of arrests by the current federal

executive branch, a report by the DC Auditor in collaboration

with the Council for Court Excellence (CCE) found that the

death rate at DC Jail is 3.5 times the national average. This

same report found that ``[a]side from the disrepair and filth

of the building, the architectural design of [the jail],

combined with staffing shortages, is contributing to violence

and deaths in custody.'' Recent changes imposed by the

federal government have already increased strain on the

facility. The newest data collected by the CCE supports this,

showing a 10 percent increase in the jail population since

the August law enforcement surge. Under the cash bail system

proposed in H.R. 5214, anyone unable to pay their bond amount

would remain in custody, likely at this facility. Cash bail

threatens to increase the jail population and aggravate

already-unsafe conditions--risking the lives of those who

cannot afford to buy their freedom.

H.R. 5214 would also override the will of DC voters and

increase costs to DC residents. DC's current risk-based pre-

trial detention system has been effectively prioritizing

safety since 1992; if the current system begins failing

District residents, DC's democratically elected

representatives are well-positioned to respond. H.R. 5214

would also bring increased costs to DC taxpayers.

Incarcerating someone at the DC jail can cost $241 a day; the

price of maintaining the current jail population of 1,977

costs DC residents approximately $476,457 every day and over

$173 million every year. Introducing cash bail and expanding

mandatory pretrial detention would run these estimates even

higher. Every dollar spent on jailing low-risk people is a

dollar not spent on schools, mental health care, roads or

targeted law enforcement needs.

Congress can stand with the residents of the District and

prioritize public safety by rejecting these proposals. Dispel

myths that D.C. allows all individuals to be released

regardless of their crime or history. Review the data and

evidence. Listen to the voices of the people who are most

impacted by the laws applied to the District of Columbia.

We urge Congress to reject H.R. 5214 and keep safety, not

wealth, the basis of pretrial decisions.

Sincerely,

Tzedek DC; Council for Court Excellence; DC Justice Lab;

ACLU-D.C.; Americans for Financial Reform; Appleseed

Foundation; Bar Association of the District of Columbia;

Catholic Charities Welcome Home Reentry Program; Center for

Legal and Evidence-Based Practices; Center for Survivor

Agency and Justice; Christian Legal Aid of DC; Civil Rights

Corps; Coalition for Justice; Coalition on Human Needs.

DC Action; DC Appleseed Center for Law and Justice; DC

Chapter National Organization for Women; DC Coalition Against

Domestic Violence; DC Fiscal Policy Institute; DC for

Democracy; Disability Rights DC at University Legal Services;

Eunnae at Law PLLC; Everyone Home DC; Fair Budget Coalition;

Free Minds Book Club & Writing Workshop; Interfaith Action

for Human Rights; Kansas Appleseed.

Lawyers for Good Government; Legal Action Center; Legal Aid

DC; Lillian's Southern Box Catering; Maine Peoples Alliance;

Mi Casa, Inc.; Michigan League for Public Policy; Michigan

Liberation; Montana Budget & Policy Center; More Than Our

Crimes; Mother's Outreach Network; National Association of

Criminal Defense Lawyers; National Center for Law and

Economic Justice; National Coalition for Drug Legalization.

National Legal Aid & Defender Association; Neighbors for

Justice; Network for Developing; Conscious Communities; Open

City Advocates; Open Horizon; Pathways to Housing DC; Project

love u; Public Justice Center; Sasha Bruce Youthwork Inc;

School Justice Project; The Bail Project; The Festival

Center; The National Reentry Network for Returning Citizens;

The Second Look Project; The T.R.I.G.G.E.R. Project.

The Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless; Thrive Under

25; Trial Lawyers Association of Metropolitan Washington,

D.C.; University of Baltimore School of Law Center for

Criminal Justice Reform; University of the District of

Columbia Law School; Volare; VYTL Inc; Washington Lawyers'

Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs; Westminster

Presbyterian Church DC; Women's Bar Association of the

District of Columbia.

Aayushma Bastola; Abi Hollinger; Alessandro Coreas; Alex

Tyson; Alexander Lyles; Alexandra Smith; Alicia N; Alyson

Palmer; Ana Pyper; Ann Keep; April Fernandes; Ariel Levinson-

Waldman; Ashlei Craig; Ashley Arnold; Ashley Martin; Ata

Akiner; Aubrey Dillon.

Balazs Horvath; Barbara E. Swan; Bonnie Harris; Carmen

Bolt; Cassandra Lyons; Cassaundra Coleman; Catherine Quinn;

Christian Constantine; Crystal Jones Nieves; David J.

Cynamon; Dr. Kirstin A. Morgan; Elisa Ortiz; Elizabeth Field;

Emily Karandy; Erin Eife; Fabian Lucero, Esq.

Gabby Mulnick Majewski; Gabriel Goldberg; George Derek

Musgrove; Gianna Karandy; Glenn Engelmann; Gwen Umbach;

Gwendolyn Green; Harvey Reiter; Henry F. Fradella, J.D.,

Ph.D.; Hugh T. Keleher; James J. Sandman; Jason A. Grant,

Esq.; Jayme Epstein; Jen Jenkins; Jennifer Copp; Jennifer

Nicole Alameda; Jennifer Ricketts; Jennifer Ubiera; Jonathan

M. Smith; Jorge Tormes.

Joshua Horvath; Joy Welan; Judith Sandalow; June Kress;

Katharine Mark; Kathryn Ferger; Katie Feioek; Katie

McConville; Kelli Coffman; Kezia Constantine; Lee Ann

Anderson, Esq.; Leonard Bailey; Lisa Cohen; Lisa Foster, Ward

2; Lisa Greenman; Madeline Bateman; Maxon Orchard; Margaret

J. Lyons; Margie Clark; Mark Randolph.

Marta Beresin; MaryAnna Foskett; MaryEva Candon, DC native,

DC Voter since 1972; Meghan Briggs; Michael Williams; Michael

Young; Misty Thomas Zaleski; Nancy Liebermann; Nashrah Ahmed;

Nikisha Gordon; Nina F. Simon; Patricia Harlow; Paul Ashton;

Professor Emily Cassometus; Rachel Gilliam; Rachel N.; Ralph

P. Albrecht, Past President, Bar Association of DC.

Rebecca Lindhurst; Ren Newport; Risa Wallach; Robert Rozen;

Ruth Enriquez; Ruth Friedman; Sade Cole; Sam H; Sam Pannell;

Sapna Mirchandani; Sarah Baczewski; Sarah Foster; Shelley

Broderick; Spurgeon Kennedy; Stacey Crooks; Stephen Benson,

PhD; Susan M. Liss; Susie Cambria; Tamasha Johnson; Tim

Curry, DC Ward 4; Vanessa Lopez; Violeta Zamora; Ward 7

Committeewoman; Willard K. Tom.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

mandatory pretrial detention based solely on a charge is unconstitutional and financial conditions for pretrial release criminalize poverty.

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

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

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

Chief Justice Rehnquist said:

In our society liberty is the norm, and detention prior to

trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception. We

hold that the provisions for pretrial detention in the Bail

Reform Act of 1984 fall within that carefully limited

exception. The act authorizes the detention prior to trial of

arrestees charged with serious felonies who are found after

an adversary hearing to pose a threat to the safety of

individuals or to the community which no condition of release

can dispel. The numerous procedural safeguards detailed above

must attend this adversary hearing.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters opposing this bill from the D.C. Mayor, the entire D.C. Council, and the D.C. Attorney General, all of whom were elected by D.C. residents.

September 10, 2025.

Hon. James Comer,

Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Robert Garcia,

Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Garcia: As Mayor and

Chief Executive Officer of the District of Columbia, I am

proud of the work we have accomplished to invest in our

people, strengthen our neighborhoods, and drive down crime.

Building on this progress, my Administration established the

Safe and Beautiful Emergency Operations Center to coordinate

public safety and beautification efforts as the presidential

emergency declaration ends. This structure ensures that DC

will remain proactive--bringing together local and federal

partners to sustain momentum on reducing crime and improving

quality of life for every resident.

We have worked collaboratively with this Committee on

shared priorities, including public safety, the federal

Return to Work, implementing a DC budget Fiscal Year 2025 fix

(which is still pending in the House) and revitalizing the

RFK campus; but I write now to ask you to reject 13 of the DC

bills before you today that encroach on DC's Home Rule:

Bills like H.R. 5183, the District of Columbia Home Rule

Improvement Act, make the District less efficient,

competitive, and responsive to the needs of a highly complex

unique local government that serves local, county and state

functions. Bogging down legislative and executive action only

adds costs and uncertainty, making it more difficult to

handle the economic headwinds and growth opportunities ahead.

Bills like H.R. 5214, the District of Columbia Cash Bail

Reform Act, make DC less safe. Replacing our very effective

pre-trial detention regime, which focuses on charged violent

offenses and repeat violent offenders, not just on cash bail.

I credit recent changes to our laws related to pre-trial

detention for helping to drive down violent crime in the last

two years.

And the bills to abolish the Judicial Nominations

Commission and to convert the elected DC Attorney General to

a Presidentially appointed legal officer for the District are

both less democratic and untenable for District operations.

The Judicial Nomination Commission, with seven members

appointed by the Mayor, DC Council, President, U.S. District

Court for DC, and the DC Bar, works. As recently as last

month, President Trump nominated three federal judicial

nominees who were selected from the Commission's candidate

pool--a process that demonstrates the value of maintaining

local input. DC residents also voted to elect an Attorney

General who represents the public interest. Changes to these

charter agencies would significantly undercut the already

thin ties to autonomy that limited home rule provides.

Finally, I urge you not to upend our three-part education

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

opportunity for DC students. However, my support has always

been contingent on parity among all three education sectors--

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

We will not support changes that tip the scales away from

this core principle of fairness for DC families. As the

fastest improving urban school system, DC has become a model

for urban education. We outpace the national average on all

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

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

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

nation in parental satisfaction regarding school choice.

Mayoral control, council oversight, and deep, targeted

investments in our students, teachers, and buildings made

these remarkable achievements possible.

I look forward to continuing a productive partnership with

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

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

our successes while protecting the autonomy that, as history

reflects, has made our city stronger.

Sincerely,

Muriel Bowser,

Mayor.

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

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, I introduce the Protecting Homes from Trains Act of 2025, which would establish a grant program for the design and construction of barriers to mitigate rail activity that can harm homes and their occupants, including derailments, noise and vibrations. District of Columbia residents frequently tell me about the negative impact of train noise and vibrations on their lives. Train noise and vibrations can harm health and quality of life and can even harm the structural integrity of homes.

As a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, I have been working to reduce train noise and vibrations. I have convened community meetings with the Federal Railroad Administration, the District of Columbia Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. I established the Congressional Quiet Rails Caucus. I introduced a bill directing the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study on how to reduce train noise and vibrations near homes. I separately requested GAO to conduct that study, which it has agreed to do.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Service Academies District of Columbia Equality Act, which would give the District of Columbia the same number of appointments and nominations to the U.S. service academies as states. Currently, each member of the House and each senator is allocated five appointments to each service academy-- the U.S. Military Academy, the U.S. Naval Academy and the U.S. Air Force Academy--and each member of the House and each senator is allowed 15 nominations for each appointment. Therefore, since D.C. has no senators, D.C. is deprived of 10 appointments and, assuming all appointments are vacant, 150 nominations to each service academy. Senator Tim Kaine has introduced the companion bill.

This bill would provide equality for D.C. residents who choose to serve their country by applying to a service academy. It is remarkable that D.C. residents volunteer to fight and die for a country that denies them statehood, voting representation in Congress and full home rule. D.C. servicemembers have helped secure voting rights for people around the world, yet have always been denied those same rights when they returned home. D.C. residents, who pay the same federal taxes as residents of states, deserve the same opportunity as residents of states to attend our prestigious service academies.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Flood Prevention Act of 2025. This bill would amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) to make the District of Columbia an eligible entity. The House passed this bill as part of the Coastal and Great Lakes Communities Enhancement Act in the 116th Congress.

This bill would make D.C. eligible for federal funding for coastal zone management and give D.C. oversight of federal agency actions that affect its coastal waters. D.C. urgently needs the protection of the CZMA because of serious flood risks that affect federal assets, residents and businesses in D.C., including the National Mall and federal buildings in the Federal Triangle area.

The CZMA provides planning and technical services to assist states in protecting, restoring and developing coastal communities and resources. Once the federal government approves a state's coastal management plan, the state becomes eligible for federal funding and federal agency actions must be consistent with the state plan.

Even though D.C. is located on two rivers and has suffered substantial coastal floods, it was omitted from the list of eligible entities in the CZMA. It is notable that under the CZMA, the term ``coastal state'' includes the states and territories. D.C. residents pay full federal taxes and therefore D.C. is usually treated as a state for federal programs. It appears D.C.'s omission was a mistake. This oversight likely occurred because the CZMA was passed in 1972, which was before D.C. achieved home rule.

Scientists have predicted that the tides on the Atlantic Coast could rise two to four feet by 2100, causing property worth as much as $7 billion in D.C. to be routinely under threat by floodwaters. This includes private homes and businesses, the National Mall, federal buildings and three military bases. The Anacostia and Potomac rivers, which surround D.C., are tidally influenced. In addition, the Maryland and Virginia coastal zones each include the tidal Potomac River, with Maryland's zone ending at the D.C. line.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Government Title Equality Act. This bill would amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to redesignate the Mayor as the Governor, the Council as the Legislative Assembly, the Councilmembers as Representatives and the Chair of the Council as the Speaker. The new titles are the ones used in the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth constitution, which D.C. adopted in 2016 in anticipation of enactment of the Washington, D.C. Admission Act, which would make D.C. the 51st state.

I introduce this bill to highlight to the American people and Members of Congress that the transition to statehood would be seamless, because D.C. already operates as the functional equivalent of a state, providing state-, county- and city-level services, despite being denied voting representation in Congress and full local self-government. This bill would not change any legal authorities.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Federal Government Advertising Equity Accountability Act, which would require all federal agencies to include in their annual budget requests to Congress the amount they spend on advertising contracts with small disadvantaged businesses (SDBs) and businesses owned by minorities and women. Federal agencies would be required to provide prior and projected total expenditures for such contracts. At my request, the Committee on Appropriations has required many federal agencies to provide such information each of the last several years, but this bill would codify this requirement and apply it to all federal agencies.

In 2007, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined spending on advertising contracts with minority-owned businesses by five federal agencies--the Department of Defense, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of the Interior and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration--and found that only five percent of the $4.3 billion available for advertising contracts went to minority-owned businesses. In light of these concerning findings, I, along with several other Members of Congress, sent letters to GAO in 2016 and 2022 requesting updated information on the amount of federal advertising dollars spent with SDBs and businesses owned by minorities and women. In 2018 and 2024, GAO issued reports on the amount of federal advertising dollars spent with SDBs and businesses owned by minorities and women. The 2024 report revealed that only 15 percent of federal advertising contract obligations went to SDBs and businesses owned by minorities and women. The federal government is one of the largest advertisers in the United States, and it has an obligation to ensure equitable access to its contracts for SDBs and businesses owned by minorities and women. GAO's findings demonstrate that there is still much progress to be made.

The regular collection of information on federal advertising contracts with SDBs and businesses owned by women and minorities is essential to bridging the gap between what current statistics show and a more inclusive advertising landscape. This bill would help achieve this goal while also promoting transparency and encouraging federal agencies to strive to reach minorities, who often receive the news from smaller media outlets that serve communities of color. The requirement that agencies submit prior and projected information on the amount of advertising dollars spent with SDBs and businesses owned by minorities and women would allow federal agencies to evaluate their progress. The regular collection of this information would also demonstrate that the promotion of equity in advertising and in all areas of government, is a continuous effort and is important to the mission of every federal agency.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Government Accountability Office District of Columbia Home Rule Act. This bill would repeal the authority of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) over the District of Columbia.

GAO, a federal agency that conducts investigations and audits for Congress, has the same authority over D.C. that it has over federal agencies. GAO's authorizing statute defines D.C. as a federal agency. In addition, GAO's authorizing statute and the D.C. Home Rule Act require GAO to engage in specific types of oversight of D.C.

D.C. is not a federal agency, and it should never be treated as such. D.C. already has a locally appointed auditor and inspector general, so GAO's authority over D.C. is both redundant and offensive. GAO does not have general authority over states and cities, and therefore it should not have such authority over D.C.

This bill is an important step to increase home rule for D.C. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.