Robert Garcia

Mr. GARCIA of California

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

Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. MR. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harris).

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

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

Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARCIA of California

Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill, which would eliminate the D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission and give a President, any President, the sole power to make nominations for D.C. local courts, which deal with municipal issues. Right now, under the Home Rule Act, the D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission submits a list of three candidates for each judicial vacancy. Of course, then it is considered by the President. This bill would wipe away the commission, and it would allow the President to directly appoint and have full control over the selection of these judges. This is an absurd level of Federal control over local judges. Every State and territory in the United States selects its own judges. Only in D.C. do Republicans think that President Trump should decide who the local judges are. Let's also be honest about what the bill is really about. This has nothing to do with public safety. It is a power grab to take away power and authority from over 700,000 residents of this district. Let's be clear. D.C. does face a judicial vacancy crisis. There are currently 15 open seats across the Superior Court of D.C. and D.C. Court of Appeals. There are 13 on the superior court side and two on the court of appeals. Why do those vacancies actually exist? The commission has submitted names for every single one of those open seats. The bottleneck is not the commission. It is the slow pace of nominations by the President and confirmations by this Senate. The Senate can solve this tomorrow, and we know who controls the Senate. It is the Republicans. Let's be honest about what this bill is really about. It is not about the Constitution. It is about partisanship. The House majority wants to give Donald Trump the ability to select judges for local municipal matters for Washington, D.C., and bypass the current commission process that exists. This is another attempt for Republicans to try to gut D.C.'s nonpartisan judiciary and replace it with partisan rightwing judges. The legislation does nothing to improve the judicial system. It strips away one of the few tools D.C. residents have to shape their courts, and it erodes judicial independence. The bill isn't necessary. It is undemocratic. It really goes to the independence of our courts. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to oppose it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my good friend that in Texas local judges are elected by Texas citizens, not chosen directly by the President. In this case, in this bill, they want to bypass any sort of local control of the selection of judges and have these appointees be chosen directly by Donald Trump. That is wrong, and Members should oppose this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I just will clarify for the gentleman from Texas that these are not Federal circuit judges. They have the same jurisdiction as State and local judges. That is what actually the bill presented says. These are local judges. They are not circuit judges. They are not Federal judges. Let's be clear what this is about. This is about allowing Donald Trump to select local judges for D.C. and bypass a commission system that is currently in place where the President still has an ability to select from a panel of different judges. There is no State in the United States, in our country, that allows the President to directly select local judges. This is an outrageous attempt to take away power from 700,000 residents and to hurt our independent judiciary system here in the District. This bill is not about safety. It is not about the Constitution. It has nothing to do with Federal Circuit court judges. It is a power grab for Donald Trump to self-select judges. Finally, as I close, I remind all our friends that all of these D.C. bills in front of us are about Donald Trump trying to play Mayor of Washington, D.C. If he wants to be mayor, he should resign from President and run for mayor himself. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARCIA of California

Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill, which would overrule rules implemented by D.C.'s elected leaders on when Metropolitan Police officers should pursue a fleeing car. Our debate here is a perfect example of why D.C. needs self-rule. We should be clear. High-speed chases are deadly. They often end in needless deaths, injuries, and devastating property damage. Over 3,000 people died in police car chases in the U.S. between 2017 and 2022. Half of those deaths were innocent bystanders not involved in the chase. I will repeat. Half of the people who have died in police car chases were innocent bystanders. That should alarm every single one of us. Across the country, Republican-led States have recognized the dangers of high-speed cases. States like Texas, Florida, and Tennessee have all implemented tighter standards to limit pursuits of violent criminals or imminent threats. They know the risks are too high for people who are innocent or could get caught up in one of these car crashes. That is the best practice, and D.C. is following the same path. But my Republican colleagues want to interfere. They want to lower the standards to allow for more chases and more innocent people getting hurt. I will remind us that this District is dense. Sidewalks oftentimes are small. Streets are tight. There are a lot of folks who live here. We should not have a one-size-fits-all policy for D.C. We should allow the people of D.C. to decide when a car chase is appropriate. Congress should not require D.C. police to use tactics that the community does not want. D.C. residents should be empowered to decide when to authorize their police to use dangerous tactics. Under current D.C. law, pursuits are allowed if a fleeing suspect has committed a violent crime, for example, or poses an imminent threat to public safety and if the pursuit can be done in a way that minimizes the risk to innocent people. We should not lower these standards, and certainly not with zero community input and no consultation with the D.C. Council, Mayor, or other folks who are actually trying to manage this city. There are many tools, we know, that police officers can use to track suspects and make arrests. We should let the Council, the Mayor, and the police work together with the D.C. police to balance public safety, pedestrian safety, and proportionality. If D.C. residents don't like it, they can vote their elected officials out of office. Today, Congress is again injecting itself as some sort of super city council to write laws for Washington, D.C. As a former mayor of 8 years, I worked with over 700 amazing men and women of a police department who were heroic in the work that they did. I know that, in conversations with our chief, our police officers, and our community, these decisions are best left to our communities to write the laws of when these police chases should actually go into effect. While I appreciate the author and my friend, this bill, I believe, is unnecessary. It undermines home rule, and it will make D.C. less safe. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins) also for his service in law enforcement. I know that he is trying to help and trying to move public safety forward. I know that is his intention, but I just want to clarify a few things. It has been mentioned that this committee or this bill has somehow been heard by a committee. We have not held a hearing on these bills. To clarify, our hearing on D.C. is actually tomorrow. There has been no coordination with the Mayor or the D.C. Council. They oppose this bill. Mr. Speaker, I will clarify. It has been mentioned a few times when we have debated this bill that there are somehow 14 criteria that officers have to consider before engaging in a pursuit. The law is very clear. The suspect must have ``committed or attempted to commit a crime of violence, or poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury,'' and the pursuit is ``necessary to protect another person'' from ``serious bodily injury''; and not likely to cause injury to others; and ``all other options have been exhausted or do not reasonably lend themselves to the circumstances.'' That is actually what the law says. I just wanted to note that. I am not sure what those 14 criteria are. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. McIver).

Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.

Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ivey).

Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I strongly oppose this bill. D.C.'s elected leaders have set clear, commonsense limits on high-speed chases and limits that save lives. I just remind folks that States like Texas, Florida, and Tennessee recognize the danger and restrict pursuits to violent crimes or imminent deaths, and D.C. follows that same practice. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARCIA of California

Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize, honor and support the American Covid Memorial established by the U.S. Covid-19 Victims & Heroes National Memorial Foundation, as the 65th U.S. National Memorial. The memorial will serve as our Nation's solemn tribute of dignity and reverence to those we lost in the pandemic. The U.S. Covid-19 pandemic is the deadliest human tragedy to occur in all 250 years of American History, with more than 1.2 million deaths. The scale of this tragedy is almost incomprehensible. Covid killed as many Americans as every war since the foundation of our country combined--twice as many people as the 1918 influenza pandemic and three times as many Americans as died in World War II. These are losses that every person in this country feels deeply, and it is a moment in history that will shape the United States for years to come. In addition to remembering those we lost, the American Covid Memorial will serve to celebrate the 31 million heroes--16 million medical and 15 million non-medical, essential frontline workers--who bravely and selflessly worked to provide lifesaving healthcare, deliver supplies, and maintain vital community services during the pandemic. Their efforts saved lives and kept our country running. The first recorded U.S. case of the new Coronavirus was reported January 20, 2020, in a 35-year-old American citizen traveling from Wuhan, China to his home in Snohomish County, Washington State. On February 6, 2020, 57-year-old Patricia Dowd, a semi-conductor manufacturer in San Jose, California became the first confirmed U.S. Covid-19 death in the United States. On March 13, 2020, U.S. Presidential Proclamation 9994 was issued declaring the Coronavirus pandemic a National Public Health Emergency. On February 22, 2021, Proclamation 10148 was issued by the President of the United States recognizing 500,000 Covid-19 deaths, calling on the Nation to conduct a moment of national silence during a candle lighting ceremony at the Lincoln Memorial. On May 12, 2022, the President of the United States issued Proclamation 10394 marking the tragic milestone of one million American lives lost to Covid-19, stating that ``As a Nation, we must not grow numb to such sorrow. To heal, must remember. On April 11, 2023, the President of the United States signed House Resolution 7--Public Law 118-3, declaring the Covid-19 National Public Health Emergency terminated. National memorials are an American tradition to commemorate people and events of historical significance and, the Covid-19 pandemic in the United States is an event of profound historical significance. It is in the public interest to establish a National Memorial to remember the lives of those no longer with us and honor the incredible service to our country by heroes working on the front lines. I ask my fellow Members of Congress and leaders across our country, to join me in supporting the dedication of an American Covid Memorial and to help build the U.S. Covid-19 National Registry of Victims and Heroes to help preserve the memories of the 1.2 million lives we lost.

Mr. GARCIA of California

Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, we are considering today the first of four bills which represent a serious violation of the rights of Washington, D.C., and the democratic process. Mr. Speaker, we know that D.C. has more residents than two States; D.C. taxpayers pay more Federal taxes per capita than any State; and D.C., as a whole, contributes more Federal taxes than 12 States. There are over 700,000 active residents here who deserve a voice. D.C.'s government is accountable to the people who live here, and local leaders should and are empowered to solve local problems without Congress interfering. Mr. Speaker, I have said this many times: If Donald Trump wants to run D.C., he should resign as President and run for Mayor. If my colleagues here want to legislate for D.C., there are plenty of opportunities to run for the D.C. Council. Mr. Speaker, I was a mayor of my city for 8 years before I came to Congress, and I love local government. A lot can get done and accomplished. Yet, let's not sit here in Congress and pretend to be a super city council, imposing our pet policies on residents who reject this agenda. Now, the bill before us right now is the so-called DC CRIMES Act. This bill will impose longer sentences on young people who commit crimes. How does it do this? It eliminates the ability for judges to make the best sentencing decisions for young adults. It will lead to worse outcomes, more reoffenders, and less safety. Now, let's be clear: This bill is not about making anyone safer or D.C. safer. It is about stripping decisionmaking away from the people and the judges of D.C., and instead handing the power of judges over to politicians in this room who don't live here, who don't vote here, and certainly don't answer to D.C. residents. This bill amends D.C.'s Youth Rehabilitation Act, or the YRA as it is known. Now, the YRA is not radical. It has been in place since 1985, and it actually mirrors laws in States like Florida and Michigan. Its purpose is simple: to give judges discretion in sentencing young adults. Now, judges can punish some young people, when appropriate, in ways that reduce their risk of reoffending, but this bill would rip away discretion. It eliminates a judge's ability to waive mandatory minimums, even when the facts show a one-size-fits-all sentence makes no sense. Judges, not politicians, should decide sentences. Now, individuals whose convictions are set aside under the YRA are less likely to reoffend. That means the law works, and it keeps communities safer. Now, we also know that in nearly 80 percent of cases, judges impose a mandatory minimum sentence anyway. These waivers are rarely granted and only when a judge determines it is appropriate. This bill is an undemocratic attack on D.C., its residents, and is also just bad policy. Now, Republicans in the majority claim D.C.'s policies are too soft, but we know that the sponsor of this bill is also from Florida, which has allowed judges to waive mandatory minimums for decades. Florida even caps youth offender sentences at 6 years, something D.C., by the way, has never done. Let's be clear: We can all agree that violent crime has no place in our communities. People are rightly concerned about crime in D.C. and back home in their communities. Democrats, of course, want safe streets, but we believe in investing in solutions that actually make people safer, not political stunts or short-term gimmicks or cheap tough talk. We know what works: supporting local police departments, investing in community-based partnerships, and creating economic opportunity to drive down shootings, homicides, and burglaries. Now, getting guns out of the hands of violent criminals keeps us all safer. Instead of doing that work, Republicans are wasting time attacking the District while ignoring the crises in their own backyards. Now, President Trump is doing nothing to address violent crime in States with some of the highest crime rates in the country. In fact, his administration has made things worse. Trump has opposed efforts to expand criminal background checks. He has blocked attempts to reduce ghost guns and machine gun conversion devices. His Department of Justice has gutted the number of inspectors who stop businesses from selling guns to criminals, cutting that workforce down by two-thirds. On top of that, Trump illegally froze or canceled $3.8 billion in DOJ grant programs, including COPS grants for our police departments that, of course, help communities hire and train police officers. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided power grab, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton.)

Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Crockett).

Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

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

Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I oppose passage of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.