Norton Releases Remarks Ahead of Speaking on House Floor on Two Anti-D.C. Home Rule Bills
WASHINGTON, D.C. –– Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) released her remarks, as prepared for delivery, ahead of speaking on the House floor during debate on two anti-D.C. home rule bills. The first bill, introduced by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), would require mandatory pretrial and post-conviction detention for certain crimes. The second bill, introduced by Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA), would repeal D.C.'s Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022.
"Violent crime in D.C. was down 35% last year, reaching an over 30-year low. This year, violent crime in D.C. is down 28% compared to the same period last year. Yet Republicans are hysterical, behaving as if current crime levels justify extraordinary federal overreach. The facts don't support their case,” Norton said.
"Rep. Stefanik's bill would repeal D.C.'s longstanding pretrial release and detention law – a law that, inconveniently for her argument, is substantially similar to federal law. Mandatory pretrial detention without an adversary hearing amounts to taking away someone’s freedom based solely on a charge. Her bill isn’t just unconstitutional; it runs directly against one of the bedrock principles of our justice system: The accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
"Rep. Clyde's bill would repeal D.C.'s police accountability and transparency law passed in the wake of George Floyd's death. Among other things, the law 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.
"The D.C. Council was elected by D.C. residents. D.C. Council members are the appropriate elected officials to make D.C. laws, not Republican members of Congress representing the interests of far-away districts.
"More than 700,000 D.C. residents, the majority of whom are Black and Brown, are worthy and capable of governing themselves. Republicans need to keep their hands off D.C."
Congresswoman Norton’s statements follow:
Statement of Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton
District of Columbia Cash Bail Reform Act (H.R. 5214)
November 19, 2025
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 members of D.C.’s local legislature vote, 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.
I ask unanimous consent to enter into 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.
I urge members 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.
Statement of Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton
Common-Sense Law Enforcement and
Accountability Now in DC Act (H.R. 5107)
November 19, 2025
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 had 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 in 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 a locally elected chief executive officer and legislature. The purpose of the Home Rule Act is to “grant to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia powers of local self-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.
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. I ask unanimous consent to enter into 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.
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 ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from leading constitutional scholars explaining why the D.C. statehood bill is constitutional.
I urge my colleagues to vote NO on H.R. 5107, an undemocratic and paternalistic bill. Free D.C.
###