Let's see, no one on the other side has contradicted the plain, commonsense interpretation of this bill, which is that the District of Columbia Council will now be disabled from ever increasing a criminal penalty again, a criminal sentence again, and the District of Columbia Council will never be able to create a new criminal offense like the one they just created for running a retail theft ring, which has become a problem across the country in a lot of places. A lot of States have legislated on that. I know Maryland has legislated on that. I am just wondering whether anyone on that side would yield for a question whether this is the deliberate intention of this legislation or it is just a mistake or whether they don't accept that plain, commonsense reading of the language of the bill because we are voting on something far more drastic and sweeping than what was represented by the sponsor's original statement.
Share & report
More from Jamie Raskin
I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harris).
On that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 264, nays 155, not voting 14, as follows: [Roll No. 42] YEAS--264 Aderholt Alford Allen Amodei (NV) Arrington…
My distinguished colleague from Texas keeps referencing his female staff and colleagues, but it seems like there has been a coed exodus from his side of the aisle as support for this bill vanishes. In the meantime, I don't have enough…
I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.





