[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 19, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H1852-H1858]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISAPPROVING THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL IN
APPROVING THE COMPREHENSIVE POLICING AND JUSTICE REFORM AMENDMENT ACT
OF 2022
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 298, I call up
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 42) disapproving the action of the
District of Columbia Council in approving the Comprehensive Policing
and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. C. Scott Franklin of Florida). Pursuant
to House Resolution 298, the joint resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 42
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
Congress disapproves of the action of the District of
Columbia Council described as follows: The Comprehensive
Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 (D.C. Act
24-781), enacted by the Council of the District of Columbia
on January 19, 2023, and transmitted to Congress pursuant to
section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act
on January 26, 2023.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability or
their respective designees. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer) and
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).
General Leave
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
{time} 1215
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 42, a joint resolution
disapproving of the District of Columbia Council's Comprehensive
Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022.
The men and women of the Metropolitan Police Department serve their
community every day to help keep the District safe and secure. In doing
so, they routinely place themselves in dangerous situations to protect
others. Yet, progressive policies from the D.C. Council continue to
hamstring District officers and needlessly place them in unsafe
situations.
The D.C. Council's Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform
Amendment Act of 2022 does just that. For example, it requires
burdensome and time-consuming approval hurdles before officers may put
on riot gear for their own protection. It creates new mechanisms for
activists to harass officers and their families by obtaining personal
information on the officers. It also creates additional liabilities for
officers that are not found in other police departments.
These are just a few of the many impractical and outrageous proposals
of the legislation.
The D.C. Metropolitan Police Department has seen over 1,190 police
officers leave the force since the beginning of 2020. That is about
one-third of the police department. Nearly 40 percent of those officers
resigned. That means they chose to leave the department instead of
dealing with the increasingly impossible burdens placed on them by the
council.
Since then, crime has been soaring in the District. Compared to this
time last year, homicides are up 25 percent, motor vehicle theft is up
106 percent, and all crime is up 25 percent.
These troubling statistics cannot be allowed to continue. The council
has continued to overlook its law enforcement officers in favor of
progressive, soft-on-crime policies that only benefit criminals. The
almost 700,000 residents of D.C. and approximately 20 million annual
visitors to our Nation's Capital deserve to feel safe.
Ensuring a vibrant and safe National Capital for all Americans to
visit is a key ingredient of the District's future financial health and
a necessity for the Federal Government workforce, and our police
deserve to have the resources to ensure the safety of all.
The D.C. Council's Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform
Amendment Act does neither of those things. If the D.C. Council wants
to continue down this path, they will have to answer to this Congress.
We are not alone. The D.C. Police Union, representing 3,500 members,
and the U.S. Capitol Police Labor Committee have both endorsed this
resolution of disapproval. D.C.'s reckless reforms have also caught
nationwide attention, with the National Fraternal Order of Police and
the National Association of Police Organizations both asking Congress
to block the D.C. reform package. Additionally, the California
Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations, the Fullerton Police
Officers' Association, and the Las Vegas Police Protective Association
are all strongly in favor of H.J. Res. 42.
We see such broad national support for this disapproval resolution
because other jurisdictions know just how awful the D.C. Council's
anti-policing so-called reforms would be as a precedent for America's
cities.
Additionally, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser declined to sign this
legislation into law. That should be a signal of how extreme it is. The
D.C. Council did not listen and proceeded to pass it anyway.
We also have a recent precedent to consider. Recently, 31 House
Democrats and 31 Senate Democrats joined President Biden and House
Republicans to block the D.C. Council's Revised Criminal Code Act of
2022 from becoming law. Congress successfully blocked the District's
attempt to lessen penalties on dangerous criminals, and now we must act
again to address the D.C. Council's reckless attempt to weaken local
law enforcement.
The dangerous policing reforms addressed by H.J. Res. 42 are even
worse for the current crime epidemic in D.C. We must ensure that these
pro-crime, anti-police policies are not allowed in our Nation's Capital
City, which Congress has a special interest in overseeing.
If the D.C. Council wishes to engage Congress to seek reforms
addressing specific problems in local law enforcement, then the
Oversight Committee stands ready to have those conversations with D.C.
leaders and my colleagues in the House.
This police reform package, which D.C. has presented to Congress for
approval, does far more harm than good and must be rejected. To be
clear, this is precisely the role of Congress when it comes to matters
of the District's governance. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress is
granted ``exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over the
District.
The Home Rule Act does establish a degree of local governance, but
under the Home Rule Act, Congress maintains a role to scrutinize and
approve of District legislation. Just because Congress has not been
fulfilling this role in recent decades is not a reason to avoid this
responsibility now, especially when we know the Nation's Capital City
is plunging into a crime crisis. Now is the time for Congress to lean
in and provide the oversight the District so badly needs.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support my colleague Mr. Andrew
Clyde's resolution of disapproval, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The good chairman of the committee invoked the name of Mayor Muriel
Bowser, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, who sent us a letter
with the chairman of the D.C. City Council, Phil Mendelson, which
closes this way: ``Not only should our policy decisions not be
overturned by officials not elected to represent our residents, but
piecemeal interference hurts our ability to confront crime and improve
public safety in the District of Columbia.''
What is this about, Mr. Speaker? H.J. Res. 42 seeks to nullify a law
passed
[[Page H1853]]
unanimously by the Council of the District of Columbia to promote
accountability for police officers who use excessive force or abuse
their power, a goal that the vast majority of Americans share.
The D.C. law banned the use of choke holds and other dangerous neck
restraints and set reasonable standards on the use of deadly force. It
required the public release of body-worn camera footage and created a
police officer misconduct database for officers who have been convicted
of a crime or had allegations against them civilly or administratively
sustained. It prohibited D.C. from hiring officers who have engaged in
criminal or official misconduct.
Most importantly for these purposes, Mr. Speaker, the new law
empowered the chief of police to fire or discipline officers who break
the law by removing police disciplinary matters from the control of
arbitrators under collective bargaining. This is the provision that
galvanized opposition to the bill from the police union, the key
provision that has now led our colleagues to want to convert the
Congress of the United States into the largest city council in the
world, a 535-member city council with the job of micromanaging and
superintending the work of the 13-member Council of the District of
Columbia.
The local police union hates this provision, which is their right, of
course. Their chief has been the chief lobbyist against Washington,
D.C., on this law. He was the key GOP witness in the Oversight
Committee hearing on the law.
His union sued when the legislation was first passed, asserting that
it violated the U.S. Constitution not to subject the discipline of
police officers to an outside arbitrator. They lost in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, they lost in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and the Supreme Court
did not grant cert. Still, the union is running TV ads against this law
and has obviously found friends on that side of the aisle.
Now, in their eagerness to kick around the more than 700,000
taxpaying American citizens who live in Washington, D.C., but have no
voting representation in the House of Representatives or in the U.S.
Senate, our colleagues are embracing a claim that puts them in favor of
an extreme police union position on discipline that jurisdictions
across America are debating and many of them are rejecting.
Why? Well, D.C. is a good example. Before passage of this law that
they propose to repeal, the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department had
been forced by labor arbitrators to rehire a significant number of
policemen and -women who had been fired for engaging in serious
criminal misconduct. Here are some examples of the officers who were
fired but the department was forced to reinstate by an arbitrator.
One officer illegally struck a suspect multiple times in the head.
The officer was criminally tried and convicted of criminal assault,
sentenced to 30 days in jail, 3 years of probation, and 500 hours of
community service. Despite strong opposition from the police
department, he was reinstated by an arbitrator.
Another officer, off duty at the time, sexually assaulted a woman and
was convicted of misdemeanor sex abuse and sentenced to a 100-day
suspended sentence and a year of probation. Despite strong opposition
from the department, he was reinstated to the force by an arbitrator.
Another off-duty police officer confessed to abusing a child. The
officer was convicted of child abuse and sentenced to 5 years of
probation. Despite strong opposition from the department, he was
reinstated, as well.
Every D.C. police chief for at least the last 25 years has expressed
outrage about the old system of having to rehire bad cops after they
had been fired for perpetrating serious misconduct against the people
of Washington, D.C.
Former D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham openly lamented that he had to
allow ``very bad police officers back onto our department.''
Former Police Chief Charles Ramsey said this: ``It is demoralizing to
the rank and file who really do not want to have those kinds of people
in their ranks. It causes a tremendous amount of anxiety in the public.
Our credibility is shot whenever these things happen.''
The current D.C. Police Chief, Robert Contee, says that giving the
police the power over discipline reduces the risk of returning poor
performers to the force.
Forcing police chiefs to reinstate bad cops fired for breaking the
law is bad for public safety, it is bad for community morale, and it is
bad for the morale of the vast majority of good cops who are doing
their job.
It is also bad for taxpayers. Between 2010 and 2020, The Washington
Post found that D.C. paid out $91 million to resolve claims of police
brutality and misconduct. The taxpayers are also on the hook for
backpay that was paid out to bad cops who were fired for this
misconduct when they were rehired following the ruling of an
arbitrator.
In a recent 5-year period, the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department
was forced to rehire 36 officers. According to an Office of the D.C.
Auditor report, D.C. had to pay $14.3 million in backpay to these
convicted and disciplined officers.
The question of whether police chiefs or arbitrators should be the
ones to decide to put disciplined cops back on the force is a matter
for local decisionmaking in Washington as it is in every other
jurisdiction in the country.
Mr. Speaker, 700,000 taxpaying American citizens have decided through
their elected representatives that the chief of police, who is
appointed by the Mayor of the District of Columbia, should be the one
to be able to discipline bad actors within the police department.
Reversing the D.C. government on this local matter is outrageous
interference by Congress to impose a bad public policy on the Capital
City.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Clyde), the sponsor of the resolution.
Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Comer for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that today we are considering my
commonsense resolution, H.J. Res. 42, which would block the
implementation of the D.C. Council's so-called Comprehensive Policing
and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022.
H.J. Res. 42 is essential to both increase public safety and combat
rising crime in our Nation's Capital City. For far too long,
Washington, D.C., which is supposed to represent a beacon of freedom,
patriotism, and prosperity for all America, has been overrun by violent
criminals.
As millions of people visit D.C. every year, it is imperative that
our Nation's Capital is safe for all residents and visitors.
Unfortunately, this simply is not the case.
While many local Democrat officials continue to bury their heads in
the sand, such as D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, who insists
there is ``not a crime crisis in Washington, D.C.,'' the data reveals
the inescapable reality of an out-of-control crime wave taking over our
city.
According to the Metropolitan Police Department, so far this year,
there have already been more than 60 homicides, nearly 50 cases of
sexual abuse, 2,000 incidents of motor vehicle theft, over 750
robberies, 300 burglaries, and more than 2,200 cases of theft from
auto. The list goes on and on. In fact, crime overall is up 25 percent
from last year.
These dangers are widely known across the District, but especially
here on Capitol Hill. In the last few months, both a congressional
reporter and a Member of Congress had the wheels stolen off of their
cars. One of Senator Rand Paul's staffers was horrifically stabbed in
broad daylight. A Member of this body, Congresswoman Angie Craig, was
violently assaulted in an elevator in her apartment building.
{time} 1230
Crime is clearly out of control in our Nation's Capital. Who is
charged with protecting the people and streets of Washington?
The Metropolitan Police Department.
Instead of providing MPD officers with the resources, support, and
political backing required to combat crime, the D.C. Council is
determined to kneecap MPD's capabilities, subsequently emboldening
dangerous criminals.
The council's anti-police law creates undue burdens on the MPD. A few
of these policies include: Limiting physical contact with the suspect.
They
[[Page H1854]]
claim it bans choke holds, but choke holds have been banned for
decades, since 1985. So this ban is really just a cheap attempt at a
political talking point. It goes further, placing liability on officers
just for touching near the neck area without any intent whatsoever.
Additionally, this legislation sets MPD officers up for failure by
prohibiting officers from viewing body-worn camera footage when writing
initial reports. This reform requires the Mayor to publicly release the
names of officers in all instances of serious use of force, allowing
radical activists to target officers and their families.
The D.C. Council bill strips the D.C. Police Union of collective
bargaining rights.
It repeals the D.C. code provision that requires the Metropolitan
Police Department to commence disciplinary action against an officer
within 90 business days. This means that officers could be placed under
investigation for an indefinite period of time, which strips their
right to timely due process of law.
Notably, since this legislation has been in effect under emergency
legislative powers since 2020, the MPD has lost almost 1,200 officers
and currently operates at a 500-officer deficit. Officers are
expressing their great concern with their feet and are leaving faster
than they can be replaced. The D.C. police force has been depleted to
an astonishing half-century low.
Undoubtedly, the D.C. Council's misguided legislation has driven out
men and women in blue who protect us, while disincentivizing
individuals to join the force.
Honestly, who can blame them? Who wants to put their life on the line
in a city where local officials continue to put criminals first and
police officers last?
Back in 2020, Mayor Bowser allowed a painted message, ``Defund the
Police,'' to remain on a street near the White House for more than 2
months. Clearly, D.C. officials have made their message abundantly
clear, and they continue to fail the men and women of the Metropolitan
Police Department.
In response, we must be united in supporting MPD officers and
restoring law and order in Washington by blocking the D.C. Council's
legislation. We have both the authority and the responsibility to do
so, just as we repealed the D.C. Council's soft-on-crime Revised
Criminal Code Act just a few weeks ago.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution grants Congress
exclusive legislative authority over Washington's affairs. It is time
to effectively exercise this power yet again to ensure our Nation's
Capital City is safe for all Americans. After all, the heart of our
Republic, Washington, D.C., should be the safest city in this great
Nation.
Public safety is not a partisan issue. It is a commonsense one.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to support my resolution, H.J. Res. 42, so we can take the necessary
steps to turn our crime-ridden Capital City into a safe, free, and
prosperous city.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just a few points about the last contribution from the
gentleman from Georgia.
Georgia reported 892 murders in the last year, the fourth highest in
the country. He said that Washington, D.C., is overrun by violent
criminals. The only time I have seen an institution overrun by violent
criminals was here in the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, an event
that that gentleman described as a tourist visit and has consistently
likened to a tourist visit. I don't know that he is going to be the
best and most reliable witness for determining when an institution is
being overrun by violent criminals.
The rhetoric I hear from the Freedom Caucus is about defunding the
FBI and defunding the ATF. No one on our side of the aisle is talking
about defunding any of them or defunding the police. On the contrary,
we have advanced initiatives to increase local government funding for
police and other services.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this profoundly
undemocratic, paternalistic resolution. The House of Representatives,
in which the nearly 700,000 District of Columbia residents have no
voting representation, is attempting to nullify legislation enacted by
D.C.'s local legislature, whose members are elected by D.C. residents.
By scheduling this vote, I can only conclude that the Republican
leadership believes that D.C. residents, a majority of whom are Black
and Brown, are unworthy of governing themselves.
The dictionary defines democracy as ``a government in which the
supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or
indirectly through a system of representation usually involving
periodically held free elections.''
D.C.'s lack of voting representation in this Congress and Congress'
plenary authority over D.C. are the antithesis of democracy.
The legislative history and merits of D.C.'s Comprehensive Policing
and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, which is the subject of this
disapproval resolution, should be irrelevant since there is never
justification for Congress nullifying legislation enacted by the
District of Columbia.
I would like to set the record straight. D.C.'s Comprehensive
Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 is consistent with
House Democrats' George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, President
Biden's executive order on policing and police accountability and
transparency legislation enacted by dozens of States, both red and
blue, to improve public safety and public trust after the murder of
George Floyd.
D.C.'s Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of
2022 would, among other things, make it easier to fire officers for
misconduct; prohibit the hiring of officers with prior misconduct;
require the release of the names and body-worn camera recordings of
officers directly involved in an officer-involved death or serious use
of force; strengthen civilian oversight of police; establish a public
database of sustained allegations of officer misconduct; make officer
disciplinary records subject to release under the D.C. Freedom of
Information Act; and prohibit choke holds and asphyxiating restraints.
Congress requires D.C.'s local legislature, the D.C. Council, to pass
the permanent version of legislation twice, separated by at least 13
days. The Council passed the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform
Amendment Act of 2022 by votes of 11-0 and 13-0. While the legislation
was enacted without the D.C. Mayor's signature, the Mayor has urged
Congress to oppose this disapproval resolution.
The D.C. Council has 13 members. The members are elected by D.C.
residents. If D.C. residents do not like how the members vote, they can
vote them out of office.
Congress has 535 voting Members. The Members are elected by residents
of the States. None are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents do
not like how the Members vote, they cannot vote them out of office.
The Revolutionary War was fought to give consent to the governed and
to end taxation without representation. D.C. residents cannot consent
to any action taken by Congress, whether they are national or local
matters, and they pay full Federal taxes. Indeed, D.C. pays more
Federal taxes per capita than any State, and more total Federal taxes
than 23 States.
Mr. Speaker, I say to every Member of Congress: Keep your hands off
D.C. If you want to legislate on local D.C. matters, become a D.C.
resident and get elected Mayor or councilmember.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no.''
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
for her eloquent remarks and also for making the specific point that
the D.C. reform legislation is perfectly congruent with the George
Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which we passed in the 117th Congress.
In fact, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act goes further than
D.C. went. D.C. did not touch qualified immunity, which was something
that was dealt with in the Federal legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to correct one other piece of
misinformation that was left by the gentleman from Georgia. He said
that it is against the law under the D.C. law for a police officer to
touch someone's neck. That is not the definition of the law against
choke holds and neck restraints.
[[Page H1855]]
It requires the use of any body part or object by law enforcement
against a person with the purpose, intent, or effect of controlling or
restricting the person's airway or severely restricting the person's
breathing. That does not involve just touching a person's neck.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 16 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Kentucky has 19 minutes remaining.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in solidarity with
the almost 700,000 residents of the District of Columbia that this
Congress seeks to disenfranchise once again.
D.C. voters and councilmembers saw the problem of police perpetuating
different forms of violence plaguing not only their city, but the
entire country, and they chose to act.
They saw the reports of fired officers being rehired, cases dropped
for faulty evidence and excessive use of force. They saw that
marginalized folks were bearing the brunt of the violence and were
being disproportionately prosecuted.
What are we doing here today?
Debating a resolution that seeks to circumvent the will of those D.C.
voters. Congress does not have the authority to pass a disapproval
resolution such as this for any other State or municipality. The
principle of no taxation without representation helped launch the
American Revolution and is enshrined in the Declaration of
Independence. D.C. residents drive around with that on their license
plates.
Yet, this joint resolution is telling all 670,000 taxpaying residents
that their voices don't matter. I am sure it is no coincidence that
those residents are over 45 percent Black. We must affirm their right
to self-determination.
D.C. residents have been petitioning for voting representation in
Congress for over 200 years. In 2016, they approved a referendum for
statehood by 85 percent. Instead of acting on that, this Republican-led
Congress has taken every chance to strike down the will of the people.
You cannot support self-rule for jurisdictions as long as they don't
make choices you oppose.
The bill this resolution seeks to strike down mirrors the George
Floyd Justice in Policing Act that this Congress passed last year.
Among other things, it prohibits choke holds, removes military-grade
weapons from officers, bans the hiring of officers with prior
misconduct, and requires officers to inform people of their rights.
Frankly, the bill doesn't go far enough, leaving out crucial reforms
such as ending qualified immunity. None of these reforms are radical
anti-police measures. None of them are particularly transformative.
They are the first, small steps toward justice.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this joint resolution and
allow the will of the D.C. people to stand.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania for her remarks, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
D.C. (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I would
like to respond to something that was said on the other side of the
aisle.
Both public- and private-sector employers across the country have had
difficulty recruiting and retaining employees in recent years. In fact,
the difficulty law enforcement agencies across the country have with
recruitment and retention predate the police reforms enacted after the
killing of George Floyd.
{time} 1245
Prior to the killing of George Floyd, a 2019 survey conducted by the
International Association of Chiefs of Police found that ``the
challenge of recruiting law enforcement is widespread and affects
agencies of all types, sizes, and locations across the United States.''
The survey also found that ``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.''
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her point, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, control over local police is an essential facet of
political self-government and home rule. The people of Washington,
D.C., through their representatives, need to be able to control their
own local police. They also need to control their judges.
The problem, of course, is that right now the District of Columbia is
caught betwixt and between. The people have made clear that they want
to become a State. They organized a State and constitutional
convention. They have petitioned for admission to the Union and are
asking the Congress of the United States under Article IV of the
Constitution to exercise our powers to admit them as a State and to
redraw the boundaries of the Federal District given our exclusive power
and our comprehensive power under the District clause to do that.
In fact, in 1846, Congress redrew the boundaries of the District of
Columbia in order to retrocede to Virginia lands there, and that was
perfectly constitutional. Today Congress can exercise its powers under
Article I, section 8, clause 17 to modify the boundaries of the Federal
District to cede the residential lands to the new State that is
petitioning for admission to the Union.
The House of Representatives in the last two Congresses voted to
admit the District of Columbia, or Washington, D.C., as the new State.
The Senate did not act, yet their statehood drive continues.
Alas, our colleagues, rather than trying to help propel another State
into the Union and to allow them to gain equal footing with all of the
other States instead decides to try to micromanage their local affairs
and to drive them back into some kind of semi-colonial status that they
thought they had left behind many decades ago.
So the real question for the Congress of the United States is: Will
we do for the people of Washington, D.C.--taxpaying, draftable citizens
who have served in every war that the Republic has ever fought going
back to the American Revolution--will we treat them the same way that
we treated the people of 37 other States who were admitted by the
original 13?
That is the dynamic of enlargement of democracy that was contemplated
by the Framers of the Constitution and the Founders of the country.
They did not want there to be large, colonized, and subjected
populations subject to the will of other people for precisely the kind
of reason that is on display today.
There is no reason why the local government of Washington should be
lorded over and superintended by other people's Representatives no
matter how well-intended they may be or how politically intended they
may be or how malevolently intended they may be. The Framers of the
Constitution and the people who fought the American Revolution rejected
the idea of virtual representation.
That was the claim of the crown and the Parliament. They said: You
don't need your own representatives because you are represented by
people in Parliament who will be able to take into account your
interests.
The revolutionaries rejected that saying that in real democracy
people get to choose their own representatives, and those
representatives elect their own council and their own mayor, and they
get to choose their own police chief. They get to make their own
decisions.
So really what we see today is a drama that reenacts the basic
struggle for democratic self-government in our country. This is a
chapter in that drama, but it will lead eventually--it must lead--to
the admission of Washington, D.C., as a new State the way that 37 other
States were admitted by the original 13, including my own Maryland,
because those original States understood the logic of democratic
equality and freedom in our country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H1856]]
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the multiple provisions constituting the D.C. police
reform law are mainstream, commonsense reforms unanimously passed by
the Council of the District of Columbia which enjoyed strong public
support and are perfectly congruent not only with the George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act, which passed the House in the 117th Congress,
but also with police accountability laws enacted by dozens of States
and localities in recent years in the wake of notorious episodes of
police brutality like the murder of George Floyd.
For example, since May of 2020, at least 24 States have enacted
legislation to limit the use of dangerous neck restraints against
citizens. Thirty-nine States have passed reforms related to officer
education and training. Since May of 2020, 26 States have enacted laws
to improve data collection and police transparency. At least seven
States, including Arizona, Colorado, and Wisconsin, have enacted laws
requiring the creation of public databases on use-of-force information.
States like Colorado, South Carolina, and Maryland have mandated
adoption of body-worn cameras statewide. At least 20 States have
enacted laws that address State-level use-of-force standards.
This joint resolution of disapproval is an attack on local
decisionmaking, federalism, and the policies of oversight and
accountability that Americans clearly want and that our committee as
the oversight committee should be championing.
This resolution would result not only in less political democracy in
America but less official oversight and accountability over policing in
the Capital City. It is amazing to me that our colleagues will not even
have a hearing on the desire of Washington with 700,000 taxpaying but
unrepresented Americans to join the Union as a State, but they will
mobilize all their energy to strip from the local D.C. police chief the
power to discipline cops who commit crimes.
There seems to be no end to our colleagues' willingness to undermine
good police work in Washington. Last month the most memorable thing
they have done so far in the new Congress, Committee Republicans
visited more than 20 January 6 insurrectionists living in D.C. jail--
the vast majority of whom are there because they were convicted of or
charged with violently assaulting our police officers. Our colleagues
liken the extremists who attacked our police officers to political
prisoners--people like Nelson Mandela, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and
Alexei Navalny. Those are people charged with ideological offenses
against authoritarian regimes.
These prisoners they visited were charged with, and in many cases
convicted of, violently assaulting American police officers.
This month now Republicans want to overturn a local law that allows
the chief of police in D.C. to keep cops who commit crimes like drug
dealing or sexual assault off the force. I don't blame the people of
Washington or Ms. Norton for telling them to keep their hands off D.C.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts
(Ms. Pressley).
Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
measure because it is nothing more than an attack on D.C. statehood and
a barrier to confronting the crisis that is police brutality.
When I hear from D.C. residents on this vote, they all tell me the
same thing: Republicans need to keep their hands off D.C.
The residents of the District of Columbia elected the members of
their council to determine what laws will govern their city. D.C.
residents did not elect the sponsor of this bill or any of the
Republicans who are in favor of violating D.C. home rule.
Unanimously, those duly elected council members passed police reform
legislation and the Mayor signed it into law. It is clear why: because
it will help save lives.
Now Republicans are violating the District of Columbia's right to
self-govern. It is hypocrisy. It is cruelty. It is another
demonstration of Republicans standing in the way of progress,
especially when Black lives are in danger.
The families and friends who are robbed of loved ones at the hands of
police deserve laws and policies that hold officers accountable and
improve public safety.
That is why I oppose this measure and urge my colleagues to vote
``no.'' Democrats are already on the record supporting these modest,
commonsense reforms. Your constituents are taking note. Do not be
misled by the misinformation and fear tactics on the other side of the
aisle.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 5 minutes
remaining.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank him for his leadership on this important committee and for giving
all of us the opportunity to express our support for the District of
Columbia.
I come to the floor with great pride on this. As Delegate Eleanor
Holmes Norton knows, I take pride in the fact that my father, when he
was a Member of Congress many, many years ago from Baltimore, was the
chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.
He was a big supporter of home rule which didn't exist at that time
and then, of course, we saw home rule, then we saw Mayor, and we see
the District of Columbia. Now our aspiration for statehood has always
been but continues to be.
So when we hear this debate on the floor, what are we talking about
here?
Has this become the city council of the District of Columbia that we
are debating issues?
That is up to the District of Columbia. What we do is respect their
ability to make their own rules whether we like them or not.
So the point is that this is sort of a gotcha kind of an amendment
that I think is most unfortunate and unworthy of the debate on
statehood and representation for the people in the District of Columbia
who fight our wars, pay our taxes, contribute to the greatness of our
country, but do not have representation in the Congress of the United
States and fall victim to any criticism of their individual
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I applaud the work of law enforcement across America. As
a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I have had the privilege of
working with the FBI, the DEA, the ATF, the United States Marshals, and
an array of law enforcement officers along with the Department of
Homeland Security which we oversee as a member of the Homeland Security
Committee.
I am wondering what is the basis of the intrusion in D.C. home rule
with my friends who thought there was nothing more important to do than
to intrude on a fully comprehensive police reform bill that was
supported by the chief of police and others as it relates to addressing
those who have involved themselves in conduct that police officers
would not support.
That is the only reason that there is even an iota of opposition.
The bill tracks the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act with changes
that are applicable and relevant to the people of the District of
Columbia. It is non-offensive legislation.
I would wonder why my friends on the other side of the aisle would,
in fact, be so against this bill when they did not help us with the
Invest to Protect Act and the VICTIM Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. They didn't help us with the assault weapons ban
that we are fighting, if I may call the roll: Uvalde, Nashville,
Louisville, and in Alabama and on and on and on.
Mr. Speaker, I support the work of the District of Columbia, the
Mayor,
[[Page H1857]]
and the city council. I support their reform bill that is supported by
police officers, and also, I support home rule.
Let us vote not to uphold the Republicans' legislation of
disapproval.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to H.J. Res.
42--Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in
approving the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act
of 2022.
This outrageous resolution would nullify the Comprehensive Policing
and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, enacted by the Council of the
District of Columbia.
This resolution is a bridge too far. While Republicans continue to
put forth legislation that further divides our country and puts lives
at risk, Democrats have continuously supported funding for law
enforcement and putting Americans safety over politics.
For two congresses, Republicans have blocked the George Floyd Justice
in Policing Act, preventing us from making any substantive changes in
policing accountability that would improve public safety nationwide.
In the absence of federal action, dozens of states and D.C. have
taken steps to improve their law enforcement agencies since the death
of George Floyd. These reforms have included restricting the use of
neck restraints, improving standards for the use of force, and
reforming police certification.
This resolution blatantly undermines Home Rule, and if my Republican
colleagues really cared about the safety of the American people and law
enforcement, they would have voted with Democrats on the various bills
we previously put forth to improve public safety.
Now, Republicans are going a step further by seeking to undo D.C.'s
work to improve law enforcement and Policy/Community relationships and
promote public safety. They want to roll back all of the progress that
has been made in police accountability.
While states, D.C., and House Democrats have consistently stood up
for accountability in policing, advancing public safety, and improving
the public's trust in law enforcement, Republicans are again defending
rogue, lawless police officers who act with impunity. These rogue
officers take lives and make all of us less safe as they erode public
trust.
Take for instance, the recent case of Tyre Nichols in Memphis, the
startling facts set forth in the Department of Justice's report on the
Louisville Metro Police Department, or the audio recordings of
McCurtain County Sheriff Kevin Clardy, Sheriff's Captain Alicia
Manning, and Jail Administrator Larry Hendrix discussing killing
journalists and lamenting that they could no longer lynch black people.
If Republicans cared about public safety and law enforcement, they
would have supported the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act because
we cannot have public safety without trust between law enforcement and
the communities they serve.
Democrats don't just talk about law enforcement; we invest in law
enforcement. Democrats have supported funding for law enforcement while
Republicans have repeatedly voted against it.
Democrats have advanced the Invest to Protect Act which would have
authorized $300 million in grants for law enforcement agencies with
fewer than 125 officers. This legislation passed with bipartisan
support, but 55 Republican members voted against it.
Democrats also advanced the VICTIM Act, led by Congresswoman and
former law enforcement officer Val Demings, which would have would have
provided grants--totaling up to $100 million per year--to law
enforcement agencies to help them solve violent crimes. 178 Republicans
voted against it.
My bill on supporting more money for victims, VOCA, is what we should
be doing more of.
If Republicans really supported law enforcement, they would have
joined Democrats in passage of the Assault Weapons Ban, which would
take the weapons most used to target law enforcement off our streets.
208 Republicans voted against it.
Assault weapons pose a significant risk to law enforcement--one out
of every five law enforcement officers killed by guns are killed by
these weapons of war.
The Violence Policy Center performed an analysis of unpublished
information from the FBI and determined that one of five law
enforcement officers slain in the line of duty in 2016 and 2017 were
killed with assault weapons. They found that, during attacks in which
multiple officers were killed, 75 percent of the officers were killed
with an assault weapon.
But that's not it. There are many pieces of legislation that
Democrats have offered that Republicans could have supported if they
really supported law enforcement.
The Fighting Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Act of 2022; the Law
Enforcement De-Escalation Training Act of 2022, the Active Shooter
Alert of 2022, and the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of
2022.
I must also remind this body that when right wing extremists
descended on the nation's Capital city, attacking citizens, and burning
flags in church yards, Republicans stood back and stood by.
This resolution is yet another example of Republicans forcing their
failed policies on all of us by any means they can, particularly in
black and brown communities nationwide.
Whether it is unfairly blocking home rule and police accountability,
hijacking the courts to restrict abortion access and bodily autonomy,
taking over school districts, banning books, or attempting to overturn
a fair election, we must hold the line and defend DC's right to self-
governance. That is why I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to oppose this resolution.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. May I inquire how much time is remaining, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Texas I think makes the essential
point which is the people of Washington and their representatives are
governing in their best interests. That is the essential gamble of
democracy.
This is why American federalism is such a beautiful thing. The laws
in Kentucky passed by the colleagues of my friend, the chairman of our
committee, the laws in California, the laws in Alaska, the laws in
South Carolina, and the laws in Washington, D.C., differ in certain
ways. That is how federalism works.
It is a massive insult, indignity, and affront to the people of
Washington, D.C., to pull the rug out from beneath their comprehensive
effort to develop good policing in Washington, D.C.
There are lots of States and jurisdictions with higher crime rates.
There are lots with lower crime rates. That is neither here nor there.
Democracy is not something you earn by virtue of the crime rate or the
inflation rate or the employment rate. Democracy is something you earn
by virtue of natural rights that we have recognized under our
Constitution, which is why our Constitution begins with the words ``We
the People.''
The people of Washington, D.C. don't have complete rights yet, which
is why they are fighting for statehood. The last thing we should be
doing is driving them back to the worst days, which as former Speaker
Pelosi evoked, when Congress micromanaged every little thing that took
place in Washington.
{time} 1300
It is not fair to the people of Washington, and it is a waste of our
time.
If they think they have a good proposal that will end crime in
America, let's do it nationally and make it apply to everybody.
Otherwise, let's agree with the people from D.C.: Hands off Washington.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the D.C. Council's Comprehensive Policing and Justice
Reform Amendment Act is irresponsible.
It prioritizes the leftist defund the police movement over public
safety and law enforcement of our Nation's Capital.
It is playing with the livelihoods of all who live in or visit D.C.
by rolling back policing in the District. This will only embolden
criminals and demoralize D.C. police officers who put their lives on
the line every day.
The U.S. House must swiftly exercise its constitutional
responsibility to oversee the District of Columbia and reject this
misguided legislation from going into effect.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to unite
in support of a safe National Capital City and support this necessary
resolution of disapproval.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 298, the previous question is ordered on
the joint resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
[[Page H1858]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________