[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.

                          ____________________