Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. 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.

Ms. NORTON. 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.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. 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.

Ms. NORTON. 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.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. 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.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. 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.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. 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.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. 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.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. 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.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. 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.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. 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.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. 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.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. 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.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. 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.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. 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.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. 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.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. 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.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce a bill that would exempt from federal government shutdowns the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA). This bill is modeled on a provision I have gotten enacted each year since the 2013 federal government shutdown to exempt the District of Columbia government from federal government shutdowns. NCPC and CFA are both closed during the current federal government shutdown. Although NCPC and CFA are both federal agencies, they have a significant role in local D.C. land-use decisions. This bill would allow these agencies to reopen during the current shutdown and to exempt them from future shutdowns to prevent interruptions in local D.C. land-use decisions during federal government shutdowns. I have separately introduced bills to remove the authority NCPC and CFA have over local D.C. land-use decisions. Until Congress passes those bills, the agencies should be exempt from federal government shutdowns. Under federal law, NCPC has approval authority for the development of D.C.-owned buildings located in the ``central area,'' including the location, height, bulk, number of stories and size of such buildings. D.C. is required to consult with NCPC on the development of D.C.-owned buildings outside the central area, but NCPC has only advisory authority in those areas. The central area is defined by the concurrent action of NCPC and the D.C. Council and currently consists of the Downtown and Shaw Urban Renewal Areas. Under presidential executive orders (EOs) and federal law, CFA has review authority for D.C.-owned parks and buildings, as well as for certain private land in D.C. Under EOs, CFA has review authority for the design of D.C.-owned parks and buildings. Under the Shipstead-Luce Act, CFA has review authority for the design of private buildings in D.C. ``adjacent to public buildings and grounds of major importance,'' such as Rock Creek Park and the Potomac riverfront. Under the Old Georgetown Act, CFA has review authority for the design of private buildings in the part of Georgetown referred to as ``Old Georgetown'' in the act. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia Clemency Home Rule Act, which would give the District of Columbia exclusive authority to grant clemency for D.C. crimes. Currently, the president exercises the authority to grant clemency for D.C. crimes, though presidents rarely do so. D.C. residents deserve a say in whether their fellow residents deserve mercy. In the 117th Congress, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform passed this bill as part of the District of Columbia Home Rule Expansion Act of 2022 (H.R. 8861). While D.C. law appears to give the mayor authority to grant clemency for certain D.C. crimes (D.C. Code 1-301.76), under current practice, clemency petitions for D.C. crimes, like federal crimes, are submitted to the Department of Justice for the president's consideration. The states and territories have full control over their criminal justice systems, including clemency. D.C. also should have full control over its criminal justice system. Since the D.C. Council has authority to enact local D.C. laws, D.C. officials are in the best position to grant clemency for D.C. crimes. This bill would give D.C. authority to use any type of clemency system. This bill is an important step in expanding D.C. home rule. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, this week, I introduced a bill that would exempt from Federal Government shutdowns the Federal and independent agencies that are exclusively or primarily federally funded but have jurisdiction over local District of Columbia civil and criminal justice matters. This bill is modeled on a provision I have gotten enacted each year since the 2013 Federal Government shutdown to exempt the D.C. government from Federal Government shutdowns. This bill would exempt the following agencies from Federal Government shutdowns: the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for D.C., the D.C. Courts, the D.C. Public Defender Service, the D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure, the D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission and the D.C. Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. With one exception, these agencies are not under D.C.'s control. These agencies provide critical local services to D.C., including law enforcement, and should continue to function as usual during a Federal Government shutdown. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commend Michele Manatt for her service at The George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management (GSPM), where she has served on the board since 2021, and for her contributions to our Nation. A native Washingtonian, Ms. Manatt graduated from the University of California, Berkeley, where she studied political economy. After graduation, she returned to the District of Columbia to begin her career in public policy and international affairs. Ms. Manatt served as a professional staff member on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, where her portfolio included oversight of the United States' relationships with Canada and Mexico and countries throughout Central and South America. She went on to serve as Senior Policy Advisor to three consecutive Assistant Secretaries of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the U.S. Department of State, helping to manage policy in the region. She continued her public service as Director of Legislative Affairs at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. Since 2006, Ms. Manatt has worked as an independent consultant, providing strategic insight into hemispheric policy and social integration. She contributed to a multiyear initiative with the Americas Society/Council of the Americas to document and explore successful models of Hispanic integration in midsized American cities. Ms. Manatt has been a leader in public diplomacy. She currently serves on the board of the Diplomacy Center Foundation, the private partner supporting the completion of the National Museum of American Diplomacy at the U.S. Department of State's headquarters campus. She was the founding chair of the Council on Women's Leadership at the Meridian International Center, fostering dialogue and leadership development for women in support of Track II diplomacy. She has always been fascinated by the power of fashion. She says diplomats defend U.S. interests not in uniforms, but in suits, blouses, ties and, in her case, scarves. As a member of the GSPM board, Ms. Manatt has provided strategic counsel to ensure that students benefited from a strong, bipartisan academic environment and were exposed to diverse career paths. Through her family's philanthropy, she has also supported other parts of The George Washington University, including the law school, the Graduate School of Education and Human Development, the Elliott School of International Affairs and the Textile Museum. Mr. Speaker, as Ms. Manatt concludes her service on the GSPM board, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking her for her contributions to The George Washington University and to our Nation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Luis Eduardo Rumbaut. Luis was a longtime resident of the District of Columbia and a pillar of D.C.'s Latino community. He died on June 28, 2025. Born in Cuba, Luis moved to D.C. in 1972 to study at Antioch Law School. As a law student, Luis was a founding member of Ayuda, where he provided legal assistance to low-income immigrants. After leaving Ayuda, Luis began a career in the D.C. government, working for the Office of Corporation Counsel. After two decades of service in the D.C. government, Luis worked as the Director of the Latin American Folk Institute and published a bilingual online newsletter, ``La Alborada,'' five times a week. Luis was very active in the D.C. music scene. A talented musician who played the tres and the cuatro, Luis and his bands regularly performed in the Adams Morgan and Columbia Heights neighborhoods, as well as in regional events. I ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring the life and legacy of Luis Eduardo Rumbaut.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Universal Prekindergarten and Early Childhood Education Act of 2025, which would establish and expand prekindergarten programs in public and public charter schools for three- and four-year-olds. This bill seeks a breakthrough in public education by providing funding for states to add prekindergarten for children at three and four years of age, like the kindergarten programs for five-year-olds now routinely available in public schools. This bill would take advantage of the safe facilities required in public schools. This bill would provide federal funds to states to establish or expand universal, voluntary prekindergarten in public and public charter schools for three- and four-year-olds, regardless of income. The classes, which would be full-day and run throughout the entire school year, would be taught by teachers who have equivalent or similar qualifications to those teaching other grades in the school. The funds would supplement, not supplant, other federal funds for early childhood education. The success of Head Start and other prekindergarten programs, combined with the scientific evidence on the importance of brain development in early childhood, virtually mandates the expansion of early childhood education to all children. Early learning programs have been available only to the affluent, who can afford them, and to some low-income families in programs such as Head Start, which would be unaffected by this bill. This bill is a practical way to create universal, public prekindergarten. The goal of this bill is to provide the benefits of early childhood education to those who have been left out of this essential education. We cannot afford to allow the most critical years of child development to pass unenriched. This bill responds both to the great needs of parents who seek early childhood education and neuroscience, which shows that a child's brain development begins much earlier than had been previously understood. Considering the staggering cost of day care, the inaccessibility of early childhood education and the opportunity that early education offers to improve a child's chances of success, schooling for three- and four-year-olds is overdue. The absence of viable options for working families demands our immediate attention. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. The D.C. statehood bill, H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act, grants D.C. residents full local self-government and voting representation in Congress. H.R. 51 reduces the size of the Federal District from 68 square miles to 2 square miles, consisting of the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, The National Mall and remaining under the control of Congress. The new State consists of the residential and commercial areas of D.C. The new State has a larger population than two States, pays more Federal taxes per capita than any State, and pays more total Federal taxes than 21 States. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the D.C. Policing Protection Act, keep their hands off D.C. and free D.C.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the D.C. local legislature, the Council, has 13 members. If D.C. residents do not like how members vote, residents can vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure. That is called democracy. Congress has 535 voting Members. None are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do not like how Members vote on local D.C. matters, residents cannot vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure. This is the antithesis of democracy. The substance of this bill is irrelevant since there is never justification for Congress to legislate on local D.C. matters. Nevertheless, I will discuss it. Vehicular pursuits by police officers are inherently dangerous not just for officers and suspects but for bystanders, too, and often there are other options to detain a suspect. D.C. permits vehicular pursuits, but it imposes limitations on them. According to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, vehicular pursuit policies must ``balance the risks, take all of the factors into consideration, and reach a decision that is best suited to their jurisdictions.'' Unlike D.C., 2 percent of local police departments prohibit vehicular pursuits altogether. The sponsor of this bill, who is from Louisiana, thinks he knows better than D.C. how to strike the proper balance in D.C. I will read for my Republican colleagues part of the signing statement your fellow Republican, President Richard Nixon, issued on the D.C. Home Rule Act: ``One of the major goals of this administration is to place responsibility for local functions under local control and to provide local governments with the authority and resources they need to serve their communities effectively. The measure I sign today represents a significant step in achieving this goal in the city of Washington. It will give the people of the District of Columbia the right to elect their own city officials and to govern themselves in local affairs. As the Nation approaches the 200th anniversary of its founding, it is particularly appropriate to assure those persons who live in our Capital City rights and privileges which have long been enjoyed by most of their countrymen.'' D.C. residents have all the obligations of American citizenship, including paying Federal taxes, serving on juries, and registering with the Selective Service, yet Congress denies them full local self- government and voting representation in Congress. The only solution to this undemocratic treatment is to grant D.C. statehood. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter explaining why the D.C. statehood bill is constitutional from leading constitutional scholars, including Larry Tribe. May 22, 2021. Re Washington, D.C. Admission Act, H.R. 51 and S. 51 (the ``D.C. Admission Act''). Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin O. McCarthy, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Congressional Leaders: As scholars of the United States Constitution, we write to correct claims that the D.C. Admission Act is vulnerable to a constitutional challenge in the courts. For the reasons set forth below, there is no constitutional barrier to the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth (the ``Commonwealth'') entering the Union through a congressional joint resolution, pursuant to the Constitution's Admissions Clause, just like the 37 other states that have been admitted since the Constitution was adopted. Furthermore, Congress's exercise of its express constitutional authority to decide to admit a new state is a classic political question, which courts are highly unlikely to interfere with, let alone attempt to bar. The D.C. Admission Act. The House passed the Act, as H.R. 51, on April 22, 2021, and as of this writing, the substantively identical companion bill (S. 51) is under consideration by the Senate. The Act provides for the issuance of a congressional joint resolution declaring the admittance as a State of most of the territory currently comprising the District of Columbia, while the seat of government (defined as the ``Capital'') will fall outside of the boundaries of the new State and remain under federal jurisdiction. The Act also repeals the provision of federal law that establishes the current mechanism for District residents to participate in presidential elections, pursuant to Congress's authority under the Twenty-Third Amendment; and provides for expedited consideration of the repeal of that Amendment. The Admissions Clause grants Congress constitutional authority to admit the Commonwealth into the Union. The starting point for a constitutional analysis of the Act is the Constitution's Admissions Clause (Art. IV, Sect. 3), which provides that ``New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union.'' The Clause ``vests in Congress the essential and discretionary authority to admit new states into the Union by whatever means it considers appropriate as long as such means are framed within its vested powers.'' Every State admitted into the Union since the Constitution was adopted has been admitted by congressional action pursuant to this Clause; no State has been admitted pursuant to a constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court has broadly construed Congress's assigned power to admit new states and has never interfered with Congress's admission of a state, even when potentially legitimate constitutional objections existed. For example, in 1863, Congress admitted into the Union West Virginia, which had been part of the State of Virginia, in potential violation of a provision of the Admissions Clause that bars the formation of a new State out of a portion of the territory of another State without the consent of the ceding State. The Supreme Court, however, did not bar West Virginia's admission; to the contrary, it later tacitly approved of it. Some critics of the D.C. Admission Act have suggested that Maryland's consent might be required under the foregoing provision of the Admissions Clause. This objection mistakenly presupposes that Maryland retains a reversionary interest in the territory currently composing the District of Columbia, which Maryland ceded to the federal government when the District was established in 1791. In fact, Maryland expressly relinquished all sovereign authority over the territory at issue when the federal government accepted it. The express terms of the cession state that the territory was ``for ever ceded and relinquished to the congress and government of the United States, in full and absolute right, and exclusive jurisdiction . . . .'' As Viet D. Dinh, who served as an Assistant Attorney General during the presidency of George W. Bush, has explained, because Maryland's cession of the territory now constituting the District was full and complete, it severed D.C. residents' now far distant ``political link with'' Maryland. The current District is not part of Maryland, and Maryland has no claim on any portion of the District's territory. There is accordingly no basis to require Maryland's consent for the establishment of the new State. The Constitution's District Clause poses no barrier to admitting the Commonwealth into the Union. The Constitution's District Clause grants Congress power to ``exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States.'' Based on this Clause, Congress established the current District of Columbia, which (as explained) was taken from territory ceded by Maryland, as well as Virginia. The D.C. Admission Act complies with the District Clause because it provides that the Capital--which is defined in the Act to include (among other things) the White House, the Capitol Building, the United States Supreme Court Building, and the Federal executive, legislative, and judicial office buildings located adjacent to the Mall--will not become part of the new State and will remain under the sovereignty of the federal government. Some critics have argued that the District Clause somehow mandates that the District of Columbia permanently retain all of its current territory, and that its size may neither be increased or reduced by Congress. The plain language of the District Clause says no such thing; it does not mandate that the District be any size or shape, except it limits the maximum size of the federal enclave to ten square miles. Historical practice confirms that Congress can change the size of the District. In 1791, Congress altered the District's southern boundary to encompass portions of what are now Alexandria, Virginia and Anacostia. Then, in 1846, Congress retroceded Alexandria and its environs back to Virginia. As a result, the territory composing the District was reduced by a third. At the time of the 1846 retrocession, the House's Committee on the District of Columbia considered, and rejected, the very argument that critics of the D.C. Admission Act are raising today, reasoning that the ``true construction of [the District Clause] would seem to be solely that Congress retain and exercise exclusive jurisdiction'' over territory comprising the ``seat of government.'' The language of the District Clause, the legislators observed, places no mandate on the size, or even the location, of that seat of government, other than preventing the government from ``hold[ing] more than ten miles for this purpose.'' The House's judgment was correct in 1846, and remains so today. The Twenty-Third Amendment does not prevent Congress from granting the Commonwealth statehood. Opponents of statehood have suggested that the Twenty-Third Amendment bars Congress from exercising its constitutionally enumerated authority to grant statehood to the Commonwealth. In fact, the Amendment poses no barrier to the admission of the Commonwealth into the Union through an act of Congress, in accordance with the plain language of the Admissions Clause, just as Congress has done in connection with the admission of several other States, including most recently Alaska and Hawaii. Section 1 of the Twenty-Third Amendment, which was ratified in 1961, provides: The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State. By its plain terms, the Amendment poses no barrier to Congress's admission of the Commonwealth into the Union. Indeed, it is entirely silent on the matter. The only question raised by the existence of the Twenty- Third Amendment is a practical, not a constitutional one: How best to address the Twenty-Third Amendment's provision for the assignment of presidential electors to what will become a vestigial seat of government, with virtually no residents? The Act satisfactorily addresses this question by providing for the repeal of the provision of federal law that establishes the current mechanism for District residents to participate in presidential elections, pursuant to Congress's authority under the Twenty-Third Amendment, as well as by commencing the process for repealing the Amendment itself. Initially, the Act provides for an expedited process for repeal of the Twenty-Third Amendment, a process that should move forward to ratification swiftly and successfully once the Commonwealth is admitted as a State. None of the other 50 States has reason to seek to retain three electors for a largely unoccupied seat of government. But the Act also addresses the possibility that the Twenty- Third Amendment is not promptly repealed by mandating the immediate repeal of the provision of federal law that provides the current mechanism for District residents to participate in federal elections. In 1961, following the adoption of the Twenty-Third Amendment, Congress exercised its enforcement authority by enacting legislation (codified at 3 U.S.C. Sec. 21), providing that the District residents may select presidential electors; the votes of the electors are currently awarded to the ticket prevailing in the District's presidential election. The existing statutes fall within the broad authority granted to Congress by the Twenty-Third Amendment to define the terms of, and effectuate, the District's participation in presidential elections. The Amendment allows for the appointment of a number of Electors ``in such manner as the Congress may direct.'' The Amendment also allows Congress to select the number of Electors the District may receive, subject only to a maximum: The District may participate in the presidential Electoral College through the appointment of no more electors than those of the smallest State, i.e., three. And section 2 of the Amendment grants Congress the power to ``enforce'' the provision ``by appropriate legislation,'' as it did in 1961. But once Congress acts again, pursuant to its express grant of constitutional authority, and repeals the legislation that creates the existing procedure for District residents to select presidential electors, that will remove the legislative provision providing for the District's participation in presidential elections. Without such a provision, there is no mechanism for identifying the Capital area's electors or allocating their votes. Some scholars have questioned whether that approach is satisfactory. They contend that the Twenty-Third Amendment is self-enforcing, and effectively mandates the appointment of electors on behalf of the District of Columbia, regardless of whether such appointment is called for under a federal statute. Some of us disagree; indeed, the very existence of Section 2 of the Amendment makes clear that enabling legislation is required to effectuate the District's participation in the presidential election process. And Congress's 1961 enforcement legislation supports this interpretation. Even if this self-enforcement argument were to be accepted, however, Congress could easily address it by replacing the current law mandating that the Capital area's electors vote in accordance with the outcome of the popular vote in the District with a new legislative mandate that the Capital area's electors vote in other ways. For example, Congress could require District electors to vote in favor of the presidential ticket that receives the most Electoral College votes (of the remaining 538 electors). Or, alternatively, Congress could require that District electors vote for the winner of the national popular vote winner. A recent Supreme Court decision confirms that a legislative directive to the Capital area's electors would be enforceable. The Twenty-Third Amendment provides that the District ``shall appoint'' electors ``in such manner as Congress may direct''; this language is a direct parallel to the Constitution's grant of broad authority to each of the States to appoint and instruct their respective electors. In its recent decision in Chiafalo v. Washington, the Supreme Court held that electors do not have discretion to decide how to cast their Electoral College votes, but rather are legally bound to follow the instructions given by their respective states. As Columbia Law School Professors Jessica Bulman-Pozen and Olatunde Johnson have observed, it follows from the Court's holding in Chiafalo that Congress could legally bind any electors to vote in accordance with the overall vote of the Electoral College or the national popular vote, just as the existing enabling statute currently binds them to vote in the Electoral College in accordance with the outcome of the popular vote in the District. In sum, none of the critics' constitutional objections to the D.C. Admission Act are meritorious; and the contention that a constitutional amendment is required to admit the Commonwealth into the Union is incorrect. The D.C. Admission Act calls for a proper exercise of Congress' express authority under the Constitution to admit new states, a power that it has exercised 37 other times since the Constitution was adopted. Courts are unlikely to second-guess Congress's exercise of its constitutional authority to admit the Commonwealth into the Union. Apart from the fact that the legal objections to admission of the Commonwealth as a State are without merit, it is also unlikely that the courts will ever consider those objections. As Mr. Dinh has observed, the decision whether to admit a state into the Union is a paradigmatic political question that the Constitution expressly and exclusively assigns to Congress. The Supreme Court has long, and strenuously, avoided adjudicating disputes respecting matters that the Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the coordinate, elected branches. The remaining objections to Statehood do not concern applicable constitutional law, but rather matters of policy. For example, some have argued that the District should not be admitted to the Union because it is a single city and have instead proposed that most of the District's territory be retrocessioned to Maryland. There is, however, no constitutional barrier to a large, diverse city, with a population comparable to that of several existing States, joining the Union. Furthermore, the Maryland retrocession proposal is subject to many of the same supposed constitutional objections raised by those who object to statehood for the District. For example, retroceding the District to Maryland would decrease the size of the remaining federal enclave, which objectors to District Statehood have claimed is constitutionally impermissible. A forced merger of the District and Maryland would also do nothing to address the purported constitutional objection to leaving the residual seat of government with three potential electors, pursuant to the terms of the Twenty-Third Amendment, prior to the Amendment's repeal. Opponents also argue that Congress should not grant the District statehood because it will lead to a lawsuit. But any court challenge will be without merit, and indeed likely will be dismissed as presenting a political question. We respectfully submit that Congress should not avoid exercising its express constitutional authority to admit the Commonwealth into the Union because of meritless threats of litigation. Sincerely yours, Caroline Fredrickson, Georgetown University Law Center; Erwin Chemerinsky, University of California, Berkeley School of Law; Stephen I. Vladeck, University of Texas Law School; Franita Tolson, University of Southern California, Gould School of Law; Jessica Bulman-Pozen, Columbia Law School; Leah Litman, University of Michigan Law School; Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law School; Paul Smith, Georgetown University Law Center; Geoffrey R. Stone, University of Chicago Law School; Peter Edelman, Georgetown University Law Center; Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School; Eric Segall, Georgia State College of Law; Trevor Potter, Campaign Legal Center. Gregory P. Downs, University of California, Davis; Larry Sabato, University of Virginia; Aziz Huq, University of Chicago Law School; Jennifer Hochschild, Harvard University; Neil S. Siegel, Duke University School of Law; Beau Breslin, Skidmore College; David C. Vladeck, Georgetown University Law Center; Sanford Levinson, University of Texas at Austin School of Law; Ira C. Lupu, George Washington University Law School; Peter M. Shane, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law; Ira P. Robbins, American University Washington College of Law; Michael Greenberger, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law; David Pozen, Columbia Law School. Mark Tushnet, Harvard Law School; Michael C. Dorf, Cornell Law School; Miguel Schor, Drake University School of Law; David S. Schwartz, University of Wisconsin Law School; Caroline Mala Corbin, University of Miami School of Law; Jonathan Askin, Brooklyn Law School; Aziz Rana, Cornell Law School; John Mikhail, Georgetown University Law Center; Richard Ford, Stanford Law School; Richard Primus, University of Michigan Law School; Joseph Fishkin, University of Texas Law School; Kate Masur, Northwestern University; Chris Edelson, American University.