[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 103 (Tuesday, June 13, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H2842-H2844]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1530
    DISAPPROVING THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL IN 
 APPROVING THE COMPREHENSIVE POLICING AND JUSTICE REFORM AMENDMENT ACT 
                                OF 2022

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of May 
26, 2023, the unfinished business is the further consideration of the 
veto message of the President on 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on 
reconsideration pass the joint resolution, the objections of the 
President to the contrary notwithstanding?
  (For veto message, see proceedings of the House of May 26, 2023, at 
page H2645.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the 
ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on the measure under consideration.

[[Page H2843]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on overriding the 
veto.
  H.J. Res. 42 is a profoundly undemocratic, paternalistic resolution. 
Congress, in which the nearly 700,000 District of Columbia residents 
have no voting representation, is attempting to nullify legislation 
passed by D.C.'s locally elected legislature.
  While it is true that Congress has the constitutional authority to 
legislate on local D.C. matters, it is false that Congress has a 
constitutional obligation to do so. It is a choice.
  D.C. residents, a majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable 
and worthy of governing themselves.
  Democracy, according to the dictionary, is ``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 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 H.J. 
Res. 42, should be irrelevant, since there is never justification for 
Congress nullifying legislation enacted by D.C., but I would like to 
briefly discuss them.
  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.
  As President Biden said in his veto message, H.J. Res. 42, ``would 
overturn commonsense police reforms.''
  D.C.'s Comprehensive Justice and 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, strengthen 
civilian oversight of police, and prohibit chokeholds.
  Congress requires D.C.'s local legislature, the D.C. Council, to pass 
legislation twice, separated by at least 13 days.
  The Council passed the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform 
Amendment Act of 2022 by votes 11-0 and 13-0. While the legislation was 
enacted without the D.C.'s Mayor's signature, the Mayor has urged 
Congress to oppose H.J. Res. 42.
  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 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. Yet, D.C. residents cannot 
consent to any action taken by Congress, whether on national or local 
D.C. matters, though they pay full Federal taxes. Indeed, D.C. pays 
more Federal taxes per capita than any State and more total Federal 
taxes than 19 States while being denied voting representation in 
Congress.
  In closing, I would set the record straight on the legal effect of 
H.J. Res. 42. While Congress can legislate on any D.C. matter at any 
time, the process for a disapproval resolution is set forth in the D.C. 
Home Rule Act.
  Under the Home Rule Act, a disapproval resolution only has legal 
effect if Congress passes it before the expiration of the review period 
for the legislation that is the subject of the disapproval resolution.

  In the case of the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform 
Amendment Act of 2022, the review period expired before the Senate 
passed H.J. Res. 42. Therefore, H.J. Res. 42 would have no legal effect 
even if the veto were overridden.
  Nevertheless, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on overriding the 
veto, and I say to every Member of Congress: Keep your hands off D.C.
  Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Garbarino).
  Mr. GARBARINO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of overriding the 
Presidential veto of H.J. Res. 42, disapproving the action of the 
District of Columbia Council and approving the Comprehensive Policing 
and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022.
  Democrat politicians in cities like New York and D.C. have 
continuously fed antipolice sentiment that endangers our officers and 
makes it harder for them to do their jobs.
  Policies like those in D.C.'s deeply misguided police reform law only 
empower criminals at the expense of our men and women in blue. In fact, 
since these policies were enacted, more than 1,000 officers have left 
the D.C.'s police force.
  Dedicated public servants are resigning in record numbers due to the 
current policing environment with very few willing to take their place. 
That means fewer officers to combat rising crime. This has become a 
public safety crisis.
  I was proud to join with Congressman Clyde to offer our joint 
resolution to disapprove the D.C. law, which went on to gain a majority 
of support in both the House and Senate--bipartisan majorities in both 
the House and Senate.
  Congress sent a clear message that enough is enough. We will not 
stand by while our law enforcement officers are vilified and handcuffed 
by pro-criminal/anti-cop legislation.
  With this veto, President Biden showed his disregard not only for law 
enforcement but also for the American people whose duly elected 
Representatives voted to block this harmful D.C. legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote 
in favor of the override to show our brave men and women in law 
enforcement that we have their backs and to reject the President's 
attempt to undermine the will of Congress and the people we represent.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I speak in opposition to this effort to overturn 
President Biden's veto of H.J. Res. 42, legislation that was introduced 
by Georgia Representative Clyde to strike down the people of 
Washington, D.C.'s local police reform law.
  If it rings a bell, it is no wonder. The House and Senate have 
already voted on H.J. Res. 42. The overwhelming majority of Democrats 
voted to oppose it when Republicans brought it to the floor in April. 
When it reached President Biden's desk in May, he vetoed Mr. Clyde's 
resolution, as he promised that he would.
  Although the resolution narrowly passed the House and Senate, in 
neither Chamber did it assemble anywhere close to the two-thirds 
majority required in both Chambers in order to override a veto.
  Mr. Speaker, today's vote is an exercise in time-wasting and 
vainglorious futility. The Republican majority doesn't have the votes 
to override the veto, and it doesn't deserve to.
  H.J. Res. 42 would nullify a law passed unanimously by the Council of 
the District of Columbia representing more than 700,000 residents 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 bans the use of chokeholds and other dangerous neck 
restraints and sets reasonable standards for the use of deadly force.
  It requires public release of body-worn camera footage and creates a 
police officer misconduct database, but only for officers who have been 
either convicted of a crime or for whom allegations of abuse have been 
civilly or administratively sustained.
  The law prohibits D.C. from hiring police officers who have engaged 
in prior criminal or official misconduct.
  Most importantly, the new law empowers the chief of police to fire or 
discipline officers who break the law by removing police disciplinary 
matters from the collective bargaining table.

[[Page H2844]]

  Now, Mr. Speaker, you may recall that this is the position that 
galvanized the opposition to D.C.'s law. This provision is why 
Republicans want the Congress of the United States to behave like a 
535-Member nationally elected super-city council with the power to 
overturn the work of the 13-member Council of the District of Columbia 
elected locally by the actual residents of Washington, D.C.
  So what is so important about this provision? Well, the local police 
union doesn't like it, and they have been the chief lobbyists against 
it. They sued when this reform legislation was first passed in D.C., 
asserting that the provision removing police discipline from the 
collective bargaining table violated the U.S. Constitution, but they 
lost their case in the U.S. District Court for D.C. and the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for D.C., and the Supreme Court failed to grant cert.

  Now, in their haste to kick around the people of Washington and not 
to support D.C. police officers who, after all, came to our defense on 
January 6, many of whom were wounded by the insurrectionists and ended 
up with broken fingers and arms and legs, and so on, our GOP colleagues 
are suddenly embracing the extreme position on police disciplinary 
matters which has already been rejected by the courts in which 
jurisdictions across America are debating and doing away with.
  Now, why is the ending of discipline of police officers a subject for 
collective bargaining such a big deal? Well, Washington itself is a 
good example.
  The D.C. Metropolitan Police Department has been forced by labor 
arbitrators to rehire a significant number of officers who had been 
fired for engaging in serious criminal misconduct, including criminal 
assault, including sexual assault.
  Every D.C. police chief for at least the last 25 years have expressed 
outrage about having to hire bad cops after they have been fired for 
engaging in serious misconduct. Forcing police chiefs to reinstate bad 
cops fired for breaking the law is bad for public safety, bad for 
community trust, and bad for morale among the vast majority of good 
police officers who are doing their jobs, like the ones who came to 
defend us on January 6, 2021, against the violent mob insurrection 
incited by the former President.
  This should not be a partisan point. This is a matter for local 
decisionmaking in Washington, D.C., as it is in every other 
jurisdiction in the country.
  Mr. Speaker, 700,000 tax-paying American citizens have decided 
through their locally elected representatives that the chief of police 
who is appointed by the Mayor should 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.
  The D.C. police accountability law makes reasonable, commonsense 
reforms that will make the D.C. police more accountable to the 
community of people they serve, increase public trust, and strengthen 
public safety.
  In fact, multiple provisions constituting the D.C. police reform law 
are mainstream reforms that enjoy strong public support and are 
congruent with the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which passed 
the House in the 117th Congress, and with police accountability laws 
enacted by dozens of States and localities in recent years in the wake 
of notorious episodes of brutality, like the unconscionable 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; 39 States have passed reforms related to officer education 
and training.

                              {time}  1545

  Twenty-six States have enacted laws to improve data collection and 
increase transparency. At least seven States, including Arizona, 
Colorado, and Wisconsin, have passed legislation requiring the 
publication of police databases or use-of-force information. Twenty 
States since 2020 have enacted laws that address State-level use-of-
force standards.
  This is a matter for States and localities to decide themselves. 
Reversing D.C. on this local matter is an outrageous effort to impose 
bad public policy on the people of D.C.
  Voting to override the veto of this GOP resolution is yet another 
attack on local decisionmaking, federalism, and the policies of 
meaningful oversight and accountability that the majority of Americans 
want. A vote to override the veto today is a vote against political 
democracy and local self-government in America. A ``yes'' vote today is 
a vote against commonsense oversight and accountability over policing 
in Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand 
up for democracy, stand up for political self-determination, and vote 
``no'' on this attempt to override the President's veto.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I continue to support this bipartisan resolution as a 
majority of my colleagues in the House did 2 months ago. Not much has 
changed since we last passed this resolution of disapproval.
  Since Congress sent this resolution to President Biden, we have 
continued to see rampant crime in the District of Columbia. D.C. 
residents and visitors are still unsafe in their Capital City.
  The Metropolitan Police Department continues to face retention and 
recruitment challenges.
  Crime levels are still higher in 2023 compared to the same time in 
2022. Total crime is up 27 percent. Violent crime is up 16 percent. 
Homicide is up 19 percent. Motor vehicle theft is up a staggering 118 
percent. This is unacceptable.
  Most notably, as of June 7, D.C. hit a concerning marker. There have 
been 100 murders in D.C. this year. According to the D.C. Police Union, 
this is the earliest point in the calendar year that the city has 
reached this marker since 2003.
  However, in the Committee on Oversight and Accountability's March 29 
hearing, D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson claimed that there is no 
crime crisis in D.C.
  In another Oversight and Accountability Committee hearing on May 16, 
U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves refused to take accountability for his 
office's failure to prosecute 67 percent of cases last year.
  The D.C. Council and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia 
have failed the residents of D.C.
  Congress has a duty to oversee the Nation's Capital and ensure its 
safety for all residents and visitors. It is time for this body to 
stand up to the criminals. I call on my colleagues to vote in favor of 
this resolution.
  The President's veto of H.J. Res. 42 serves no purpose other than to 
continue to allow crime to spread and hinder our local police from 
fulfilling their duties to protect the D.C. community and the Nation's 
Capital City.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to uphold what we and the Senate 
have done over the last 2 months by voting in favor of this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on 
reconsideration, pass the joint resolution, the objections of the 
President to the contrary notwithstanding?
  Under the Constitution, the vote must be by the yeas and nays.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________