[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 152 (Wednesday, September 17, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H4379-H4386]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA POLICING PROTECTION ACT
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 707, I call up
the bill (H.R. 5143) to establish standards for law enforcement
officers in the District of Columbia to engage in vehicular pursuits of
suspects, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Moolenaar). Pursuant to House Resolution
707, the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text
of Rules Committee Print 119-11 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is
considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 5143
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia
Policing Protection Act of 2025''.
SEC. 2. VEHICULAR PURSUITS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
(a) Amendment.--The Comprehensive Policing and Justice
Reform Amendment Act of 2022 (D.C. Law 24-345) is amended--
(1) in subtitle S of title I--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``LIMITATIONS ON THE'';
(B) in section 127(a) (sec. 5-365.01(a), D.C. Official
Code)--
(i) by striking paragraphs (1) through (5);
(ii) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end
and inserting the following: ``, except
[[Page H4380]]
that such term does not include a sworn federal law
enforcement officer of a covered federal law enforcement
agency as defined in section 11712(d) of the National Capital
Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997
(sec. 5-133.17(d), D.C. Official Code).'';
(iii) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs
(1) and (2), respectively;
(iv) by striking paragraphs (8) through (11); and
(v) by redesignating paragraph (12) as paragraph (3); and
(C) in section 128 (sec. 5-365.02, D.C. Official Code), by
striking subsections (a), (b), and (c) and inserting the
following:``If a law enforcement officer encounters a suspect
fleeing in a motor vehicle, the officer may engage in a
vehicular pursuit of the suspect unless the officer, or a
higher-ranking official with supervisory authority over the
officer, reasonably believes that--
``(1) vehicular pursuit would--
``(A) entail an unacceptable risk of harm to a person other
than the suspect; or
``(B) be futile; or
``(2) the suspect can be apprehended more effectively or
expeditiously by a means other than vehicular pursuit.''; and
(2) in the table of contents, by striking the item relating
to subtitle S of title I and inserting the following:
``SUBTITLE S. USE OF VEHICULAR PURSUITS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFF33''.....
(b) Department of Justice Report on PursuitAlert.--Not
later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Attorney General shall--
(1) evaluate the costs and benefits of the Metropolitan
Police Department of the District of Columbia adopting
PursuitAlert or another similar technology capable of
alerting members of the public to the presence of a police
pursuit in their immediate vicinity; and
(2) publish a report on the evaluation conducted under
paragraph (1) and submit the report to--
(A) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate;
(B) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
(C) the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the
House of Representatives; and
(D) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or their
respective designees.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Garcia) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
General Leave
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days 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.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 5143, the District of
Columbia Policing Protection Act of 2025. This bill repeals subtitle S
of the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022
and replaces it with policies empowering police to pursue a suspect
fleeing in a vehicle.
The 2022 act imposes burdensome restrictions on police pursuit of
criminal suspects. This has resulted in less justice for victims of
crime in Washington, D.C., and more opportunities for criminals, who
would otherwise be apprehended, to continue harming D.C. and
surrounding communities.
This bill replaces subtitle S with policies that allow for vehicular
pursuit of a suspect fleeing in a motor vehicle if the officer or
supervisor deems it necessary, the most effective means of
apprehension, and without unreasonable risk to bystanders.
I thank Representative Clay Higgins for his leadership on this
critical local policing reform legislation, and I urge my colleagues to
support his bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill, which would overrule rules
implemented by D.C.'s elected leaders on when Metropolitan Police
officers should pursue a fleeing car.
Our debate here is a perfect example of why D.C. needs self-rule. We
should be clear. High-speed chases are deadly. They often end in
needless deaths, injuries, and devastating property damage.
Over 3,000 people died in police car chases in the U.S. between 2017
and 2022. Half of those deaths were innocent bystanders not involved in
the chase. I will repeat. Half of the people who have died in police
car chases were innocent bystanders. That should alarm every single one
of us.
Across the country, Republican-led States have recognized the dangers
of high-speed cases. States like Texas, Florida, and Tennessee have all
implemented tighter standards to limit pursuits of violent criminals or
imminent threats. They know the risks are too high for people who are
innocent or could get caught up in one of these car crashes. That is
the best practice, and D.C. is following the same path.
But my Republican colleagues want to interfere. They want to lower
the standards to allow for more chases and more innocent people getting
hurt.
I will remind us that this District is dense. Sidewalks oftentimes
are small. Streets are tight. There are a lot of folks who live here.
We should not have a one-size-fits-all policy for D.C. We should allow
the people of D.C. to decide when a car chase is appropriate.
Congress should not require D.C. police to use tactics that the
community does not want. D.C. residents should be empowered to decide
when to authorize their police to use dangerous tactics.
Under current D.C. law, pursuits are allowed if a fleeing suspect has
committed a violent crime, for example, or poses an imminent threat to
public safety and if the pursuit can be done in a way that minimizes
the risk to innocent people.
{time} 1240
We should not lower these standards, and certainly not with zero
community input and no consultation with the D.C. Council, Mayor, or
other folks who are actually trying to manage this city.
There are many tools, we know, that police officers can use to track
suspects and make arrests. We should let the Council, the Mayor, and
the police work together with the D.C. police to balance public safety,
pedestrian safety, and proportionality. If D.C. residents don't like
it, they can vote their elected officials out of office.
Today, Congress is again injecting itself as some sort of super city
council to write laws for Washington, D.C. As a former mayor of 8
years, I worked with over 700 amazing men and women of a police
department who were heroic in the work that they did. I know that, in
conversations with our chief, our police officers, and our community,
these decisions are best left to our communities to write the laws of
when these police chases should actually go into effect.
While I appreciate the author and my friend, this bill, I believe, is
unnecessary. It undermines home rule, and it will make D.C. less safe.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the sponsor of the bill,
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee for recognizing me and
allowing me to speak in support of H.R. 5143, the District of Columbia
Policing Protection Act.
As a matter of background, Mr. Speaker, in January 2023, the D.C.
Council enacted the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment
Act of 2022, the CPJRA Act, D.C. Law 24-345, among numerous other
police-related policy matters, most of which we advised against in the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee. We met with D.C. officials,
including in hearings, and we advised against what they intended to do.
Mr. Speaker, included in those police-related policy matters in the
act that they, indeed, passed in 2022 was subtitle S of the CPJRA,
which imposed a host of restrictions on police pursuit of criminal
suspects.
In doing so, the D.C. Council essentially made it illegal for police
to pursue and apprehend criminals if they were fleeing in a vehicle by
imposing a complex matrix of 14 factors that police officers have to
consider for whether or not they would pursue a fleeing vehicle.
[[Page H4381]]
I speak from my own experience as a police officer. I have been, very
likely, the only one involved in this debate for several years who has
actually engaged in high-speed chases. I tried to add it up the other
day, but I probably have engaged in a couple of hundred serious high-
speed pursuits in the course of my career. I worked night shift for a
long time, 9 years straight, 12-hour shifts. Night shift is when this
stuff usually happens.
I am not talking about when someone doesn't stop right away. That is
not a high-speed pursuit. Having to drive 100 miles an hour to catch up
with somebody that you are pulling over is not a high-speed pursuit.
A high-speed pursuit is when they are running. This is something
where the officer has to make very fast decisions, Mr. Speaker. Yes, we
consider the totality of circumstances of where we are: Is that a
suspect vehicle? Does it match a definition of something that has been
put out through dispatch of a vehicle that we are looking for? Has it
potentially been involved in a crime that requires police interaction
in an effort to enforce and address that crime that took place?
There are a number of factors that a police officer has to figure,
but it has to be an option that you can pursue that car.
What D.C. has done, one of the factors, Mr. Speaker, is if anyone in
the suspect motor vehicle was afforded an opportunity to comply with an
order to surrender any suspected dangerous weapons.
What the hell? There is no way a police officer can know that. There
are too many factors, which basically means D.C. has made it illegal
for police to pursue a vehicle.
That is what we are correcting here. We are restoring the discretion
of the professional law enforcement officer to make a decision in a
fraction of a second or two based upon his policies and training and
the totality of circumstances of whether or not he needs to pursue that
vehicle.
This is what my bill restores. The legislation repeals subtitle S of
the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 and
replaces it with policies empowering police to make vehicular pursuit
of a suspect fleeing in a motor vehicle if the officer or supervisor
deems it necessary, that it is the most effective means of
apprehension, and if it is without unreasonable risk to bystanders.
Let me say, in all of my vehicle pursuits, there have been a few
crashes, but nobody has died. The only crash that I have ever been
involved in during those pursuits was when I purposefully crashed the
fleeing vehicle, which was the guy who had committed an armed robbery
at a local hardware store, had pistol-whipped the manager of that
store, made it to his car, and fired at officers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time yielded
and the indulgence of the chairman. I urge strong support of H.R. 5143.
It restores legitimate discretion to the police officers who actually
work the streets of D.C.
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins) also
for his service in law enforcement. I know that he is trying to help
and trying to move public safety forward. I know that is his intention,
but I just want to clarify a few things.
It has been mentioned that this committee or this bill has somehow
been heard by a committee. We have not held a hearing on these bills.
To clarify, our hearing on D.C. is actually tomorrow. There has been no
coordination with the Mayor or the D.C. Council. They oppose this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I will clarify. It has been mentioned a few times when
we have debated this bill that there are somehow 14 criteria that
officers have to consider before engaging in a pursuit.
The law is very clear. The suspect must have ``committed or attempted
to commit a crime of violence, or poses an imminent threat of death or
serious bodily injury,'' and the pursuit is ``necessary to protect
another person'' from ``serious bodily injury''; and not likely to
cause injury to others; and ``all other options have been exhausted or
do not reasonably lend themselves to the circumstances.'' That is
actually what the law says.
I just wanted to note that. I am not sure what those 14 criteria are.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this undemocratic and paternalistic
bill, which amends D.C. law. The over 700,000 D.C. residents, the
majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable and worthy of
governing themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters opposing this bill from
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, the entire D.C. Council, and D.C. Attorney
General Brian Schwalb.
September 10, 2025.
Hon. James Corner,
Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Robert Garcia,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Garcia: As Mayor and
Chief Executive Officer of the District of Columbia, I am
proud of the work we have accomplished to invest in our
people, strengthen our neighborhoods, and drive down crime.
Building on this progress, my Administration established the
Safe and Beautiful Emergency Operations Center to coordinate
public safety and beautification efforts as the presidential
emergency declaration ends. This structure ensures that DC
will remain proactive--bringing together local and federal
partners to sustain momentum on reducing crime and improving
quality of life for every resident.
We have worked collaboratively with this Committee on
shared priorities, including public safety, the federal
Return to Work, implementing a DC budget Fiscal Year 2025 fix
(which is still pending in the House) and revitalizing the
RFK campus; but I write now to ask you to reject 13 of the DC
bills before you today that encroach on DC's Home Rule:
Bills like H.R. 5183, the District of Columbia Home Rule
Improvement Act, make the District less efficient,
competitive, and responsive to the needs of a highly complex
unique local government that serves local, county and state
functions. Bogging down legislative and executive action only
adds costs and uncertainty, making it more difficult to
handle the economic headwinds and growth opportunities ahead.
Bills like H.R. 5214, the District of Columbia Cash Bail
Reform Act, make DC less safe. Replacing our very effective
pre-trial detention regime, which focuses on charged violent
offenses and repeat violent offenders, not just on cash bail.
I credit recent changes to our laws related to pre-trial
detention for helping to drive down violent crime in the last
two years.
And the bills to abolish the Judicial Nominations
Commission and to convert the elected DC Attorney General to
a Presidentially appointed legal officer for the District are
both less democratic and untenable for District operations.
The Judicial Nomination Commission, with seven members
appointed by the Mayor, DC Council, President, US District
Court for DC, and the DC Bar, works. As recently as last
month, President Trump nominated three federal judicial
nominees who were selected from the Commission's candidate
pool--a process that demonstrates the value of maintaining
local input. DC residents also voted to elect an Attorney
General who represents the public interest. Changes to these
charter agencies would significantly undercut the already
thin ties to autonomy that limited home rule provides.
Finally, I urge you not to up end our three-part education
funding SOAR Act. I have long supported the program to expand
opportunity for DC students. However, my support has always
been contingent on parity among all three education sectors--
public, private, and charter--and this approach is working.
We will not support changes that tip the scales away from
this core principle of fairness for DC families. As the
fastest improving urban school system, DC has become a model
for urban education. We outpace the national average on all
tested subject areas. We boast free, full-day Pre-K access
serving more than 13,200 young learners--an investment which
supports our children and our workforce. DC ranked top of the
nation in parental satisfaction regarding school choice.
Mayoral control, council oversight, and deep, targeted
investments in our students, teachers, and buildings made
these remarkable achievements possible.
I look forward to continuing a productive partnership with
the Committee--one that respects the will of DC residents and
honors the principles of home rule. Together, we can build on
our successes while protecting the autonomy that, as history
reflects, has made our city stronger.
Sincerely,
Muriel Bowser,
Mayor.
[[Page H4382]]
____
Council of the District of Columbia,
Washington, DC, September 8, 2025.
Hon. James Comer,
Chair, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Robert Garcia,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Garcia: The Council
of the District of Columbia is aware that the House Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform is planning to mark up
more than a dozen proposed measures that would severely and
negatively impact the operations, public safety, and autonomy
of the District of Columbia. We ask that you oppose these
measures in full, save one, H.R. 2693, District of Columbia
Electronic Transmittal of Legislation Act. While we have not
seen the final text of this legislation, the public summary
of H.R. 2693 is consistent with the long held request by the
District of Columbia to allow the ability to electronically
transfer legislative acts to Congress, rather than only
allowing physical copies be transferred. The challenge and
barriers created by this current requirement were clearly
exposed during both the recent COVID pandemic restrictions as
well as the Capitol campus restrictions following the January
6, 2021 attacks on the Capitol.
The other 13 measures that have been shared with us would
do direct and serious harm to the District of Columbia and we
urge you to reject these measures completely. These bills
represent an unprecedented attack on the autonomy and home
rule of our local government and the more than 700,000
Americans that call it home. The breadth of these bills is
remarkable, and if passed, would result in an erosion of
accountability and public safety for the District of
Columbia. They range from eliminating and replacing our
elected and accountable Attorney General for the District of
Columbia with a President's hand-picked and unaccountable
associate requiring no confirmation by the U.S. Senate and no
local ties, to a full repeal of multiple local DC laws that
have been in place for many years, if not decades, that are
tested, proven, and effective components of our public safety
infrastructure and ecosystem. The effect of these
Congressional repeals would put our legal and Court system
into chaos and directly undermine successful tools that focus
on serious accountability and effective rehabilitation when a
crime occurs. As always, when revisions or amendments to DC
laws are necessary, those changes should only take place
within our local legislature which has the best capacity to
provide effective oversight and accountable actions for the
residents of the District of Columbia.
We respectfully request that all members of the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform, and all members of
Congress, reject these harmful measures whether in committee
mark up or before the full House of Representatives. Given
the breadth of the multiple measures before you, we also
request an opportunity to provide a more in-depth discussion
of each bill before the Committee's mark-up, especially in
light that the Committee will not hold public hearings on
these measures.
Sincerely,
Chairman Phil Mendelson; Councilmember Anita Bonds, At-
Large; Councilmember Robert White, Jr., At-Large;
Councilmember Brooke Pinto, Ward 2; Councilmember Janeese
Lewis George, Ward 4; Councilmember Charles Allen, Ward 6;
Councilmember Trayon White, Sr, Ward 8; Councilmember Kenyan
McDuffie, At-Large; Councilmember Christina Henderson, At-
Large; Councilmember Brianne Nadeau, Ward 1; Councilmember
Matthew Frumin, Ward 3; Councilmember Zachary Parker, Ward 5;
Councilmember Wendell Felder, Ward 7.
____
Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the
Attorney General,
Washington, DC, September 9, 2025.
Hon. James Comer,
Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Robert Garcia,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Garcia: The House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is scheduled to
markup fourteen bills tomorrow related to the operations of
the District of Columbia. With the exception of H.R. 2693,
the District of Columbia Electronic Transmittal Act, I write
in strong opposition to these bills. They address inherently
local issues and laws that were passed after careful
consideration by the District's elected representatives, who
are directly accountable to District residents. Members of
this very Committee have long advocated for the principles of
federalism on which this nation was founded. They have
consistently condemned federal overreach and fought
forcefully and convincingly for the uniquely American values
of local control, freedom, and self-governance. These
principles should apply to the more than 700,000 people who
call Washington, DC home, just as they do for your
constituents across the country.
I specifically want to call attention to the significant
incursion on local self-governance reflected in two bills,
the District of Columbia Attorney General Appointment Reform
Act and the District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Reform
Act. Both laws would displace the ability of District
residents to have a voice in the selection of local leaders
who wield significant power over local judicial matters: the
judges on our local courts and the Attorney General for the
District. The judges on the DC Court of Appeals and DC
Superior Court rule on inherently local matters such as
criminal prosecutions, landlord-tenant cases, probate
proceedings, civil cases, and divorce proceedings, all of
which have profoundly important impact on our community. For
more than 50 years, the Judicial Nomination Commission (JNC)
has successfully allowed DC residents to have a voice in
judicial appointments, while also granting the President and
Senate a role in confirming our judges. I urge the Committee
not to overturn that well-established process.
The DC Attorney General, as the District's chief law
officer, is also responsible for local legal issues, namely,
protecting the District and its residents in a wide range of
matters, such as enforcing child support laws, handling abuse
and neglect proceedings in the child welfare system,
enforcing our housing code, and defending District agencies
and officers when they are sued. In no other place in the
United States are such local issues determined by a federally
appointed person with no local accountability. The proposed
legislation would be especially undemocratic in light of the
fact that, in 2010, an overwhelming majority of District
voters (76 percent) exercised their right to amend the
District Charter to make the DC Attorney General an
independent, elected office, rather than a position appointed
by and subordinate to the Mayor. With that vote, District
residents clearly expressed their desire that the Attorney
General should be independent and accountable to them. The
pending bill would displace that choice in favor of
installing an Attorney General accountable not to District
residents, but to the President. Given that the U.S. Attorney
for the District is already appointed by the President, if
passed, this bill would concentrate all criminal and civil
litigation authority in the President, divesting the District
and its residents of any local control over these essential
functions.
No one knows or cares more about keeping DC safe than DC
residents who work, live and raise their families here. Our
democratically elected officials work closely with local law
enforcement, policy experts, and community leadership to pass
laws that are in the best interests of all Washingtonians.
Substituting the will of DC voters with the whim of federal
politicians is undemocratic and un-American.
I urge you to reject these measures and uphold the values
Congress sought to advance more than 50 years ago when it
passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act: that District
residents should enjoy the ``powers of local self-
government'' that all other Americans enjoy. See DC Code
Sec. l-201.02.
Respectfully submitted,
Brian L. Schwalb,
Attorney General for the District of Columbia.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the D.C. local legislature, the Council, has
13 members. If D.C. residents do not like how members vote, residents
can vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure. That is called
democracy.
Congress has 535 voting Members. None are elected by D.C. residents.
If D.C. residents do not like how Members vote on local D.C. matters,
residents cannot vote them out of office or pass a ballot measure. This
is the antithesis of democracy.
The substance of this bill is irrelevant since there is never
justification for Congress to legislate on local D.C. matters.
Nevertheless, I will discuss it.
{time} 1250
Vehicular pursuits by police officers are inherently dangerous not
just for officers and suspects but for bystanders, too, and often there
are other options to detain a suspect. D.C. permits vehicular pursuits,
but it imposes limitations on them. According to the International
Association of Chiefs of Police, vehicular pursuit policies must
``balance the risks, take all of the factors into consideration, and
reach a decision that is best suited to their jurisdictions.'' Unlike
D.C., 2 percent of local police departments prohibit vehicular pursuits
altogether. The sponsor of this bill, who is from Louisiana, thinks he
knows better than D.C. how to strike the proper balance in D.C.
I will read for my Republican colleagues part of the signing
statement your fellow Republican, President Richard Nixon, issued on
the D.C. Home Rule Act: ``One of the major goals of this administration
is to place responsibility for local functions under local control and
to provide local governments with the authority and resources they need
to serve their communities effectively. The measure I sign today
represents a significant step
[[Page H4383]]
in achieving this goal in the city of Washington. It will give the
people of the District of Columbia the right to elect their own city
officials and to govern themselves in local affairs. As the Nation
approaches the 200th anniversary of its founding, it is particularly
appropriate to assure those persons who live in our Capital City rights
and privileges which have long been enjoyed by most of their
countrymen.''
D.C. residents have all the obligations of American citizenship,
including paying Federal taxes, serving on juries, and registering with
the Selective Service, yet Congress denies them full local self-
government and voting representation in Congress. The only solution to
this undemocratic treatment is to grant D.C. statehood.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter explaining why the D.C.
statehood bill is constitutional from leading constitutional scholars,
including Larry Tribe.
May 22, 2021.
Re Washington, D.C. Admission Act, H.R. 51 and S. 51 (the
``D.C. Admission Act'').
Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles E. Schumer,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin O. McCarthy,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressional Leaders: As scholars of the United
States Constitution, we write to correct claims that the D.C.
Admission Act is vulnerable to a constitutional challenge in
the courts. For the reasons set forth below, there is no
constitutional barrier to the State of Washington, Douglass
Commonwealth (the ``Commonwealth'') entering the Union
through a congressional joint resolution, pursuant to the
Constitution's Admissions Clause, just like the 37 other
states that have been admitted since the Constitution was
adopted. Furthermore, Congress's exercise of its express
constitutional authority to decide to admit a new state is a
classic political question, which courts are highly unlikely
to interfere with, let alone attempt to bar.
The D.C. Admission Act. The House passed the Act, as H.R.
51, on April 22, 2021, and as of this writing, the
substantively identical companion bill (S. 51) is under
consideration by the Senate. The Act provides for the
issuance of a congressional joint resolution declaring the
admittance as a State of most of the territory currently
comprising the District of Columbia, while the seat of
government (defined as the ``Capital'') will fall outside of
the boundaries of the new State and remain under federal
jurisdiction. The Act also repeals the provision of federal
law that establishes the current mechanism for District
residents to participate in presidential elections, pursuant
to Congress's authority under the Twenty-Third Amendment; and
provides for expedited consideration of the repeal of that
Amendment.
The Admissions Clause grants Congress constitutional
authority to admit the Commonwealth into the Union. The
starting point for a constitutional analysis of the Act is
the Constitution's Admissions Clause (Art. IV, Sect. 3),
which provides that ``New States may be admitted by the
Congress into this Union.'' The Clause ``vests in Congress
the essential and discretionary authority to admit new states
into the Union by whatever means it considers appropriate as
long as such means are framed within its vested powers.''
Every State admitted into the Union since the Constitution
was adopted has been admitted by congressional action
pursuant to this Clause; no State has been admitted pursuant
to a constitutional amendment.
The Supreme Court has broadly construed Congress's assigned
power to admit new states and has never interfered with
Congress's admission of a state, even when potentially
legitimate constitutional objections existed. For example, in
1863, Congress admitted into the Union West Virginia, which
had been part of the State of Virginia, in potential
violation of a provision of the Admissions Clause that bars
the formation of a new State out of a portion of the
territory of another State without the consent of the ceding
State. The Supreme Court, however, did not bar West
Virginia's admission; to the contrary, it later tacitly
approved of it.
Some critics of the D.C. Admission Act have suggested that
Maryland's consent might be required under the foregoing
provision of the Admissions Clause. This objection mistakenly
presupposes that Maryland retains a reversionary interest in
the territory currently composing the District of Columbia,
which Maryland ceded to the federal government when the
District was established in 1791. In fact, Maryland expressly
relinquished all sovereign authority over the territory at
issue when the federal government accepted it. The express
terms of the cession state that the territory was ``for ever
ceded and relinquished to the congress and government of the
United States, in full and absolute right, and exclusive
jurisdiction . . . .'' As Viet D. Dinh, who served as an
Assistant Attorney General during the presidency of George W.
Bush, has explained, because Maryland's cession of the
territory now constituting the District was full and
complete, it severed D.C. residents' now far distant
``political link with'' Maryland. The current District is not
part of Maryland, and Maryland has no claim on any portion of
the District's territory. There is accordingly no basis to
require Maryland's consent for the establishment of the new
State.
The Constitution's District Clause poses no barrier to
admitting the Commonwealth into the Union. The Constitution's
District Clause grants Congress power to ``exercise exclusive
Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not
exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular
States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States.'' Based on this Clause,
Congress established the current District of Columbia, which
(as explained) was taken from territory ceded by Maryland, as
well as Virginia.
The D.C. Admission Act complies with the District Clause
because it provides that the Capital--which is defined in the
Act to include (among other things) the White House, the
Capitol Building, the United States Supreme Court Building,
and the Federal executive, legislative, and judicial office
buildings located adjacent to the Mall--will not become part
of the new State and will remain under the sovereignty of the
federal government.
Some critics have argued that the District Clause somehow
mandates that the District of Columbia permanently retain all
of its current territory, and that its size may neither be
increased or reduced by Congress. The plain language of the
District Clause says no such thing; it does not mandate that
the District be any size or shape, except it limits the
maximum size of the federal enclave to ten square miles.
Historical practice confirms that Congress can change the
size of the District. In 1791, Congress altered the
District's southern boundary to encompass portions of what
are now Alexandria, Virginia and Anacostia. Then, in 1846,
Congress retroceded Alexandria and its environs back to
Virginia. As a result, the territory composing the District
was reduced by a third.
At the time of the 1846 retrocession, the House's Committee
on the District of Columbia considered, and rejected, the
very argument that critics of the D.C. Admission Act are
raising today, reasoning that the ``true construction of [the
District Clause] would seem to be solely that Congress retain
and exercise exclusive jurisdiction'' over territory
comprising the ``seat of government.'' The language of the
District Clause, the legislators observed, places no mandate
on the size, or even the location, of that seat of
government, other than preventing the government from
``hold[ing] more than ten miles for this purpose.'' The
House's judgment was correct in 1846, and remains so today.
The Twenty-Third Amendment does not prevent Congress from
granting the Commonwealth statehood. Opponents of statehood
have suggested that the Twenty-Third Amendment bars Congress
from exercising its constitutionally enumerated authority to
grant statehood to the Commonwealth. In fact, the Amendment
poses no barrier to the admission of the Commonwealth into
the Union through an act of Congress, in accordance with the
plain language of the Admissions Clause, just as Congress has
done in connection with the admission of several other
States, including most recently Alaska and Hawaii.
Section 1 of the Twenty-Third Amendment, which was ratified
in 1961, provides:
The District constituting the seat of Government of the
United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress
may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice
President equal to the whole number of Senators and
Representatives in Congress to which the District would be
entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the
least populous State; they shall be in addition to those
appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for
the purposes of the election of President and Vice President,
to be electors appointed by a State.
By its plain terms, the Amendment poses no barrier to
Congress's admission of the Commonwealth into the Union.
Indeed, it is entirely silent on the matter.
The only question raised by the existence of the Twenty-
Third Amendment is a practical, not a constitutional one: How
best to address the Twenty-Third Amendment's provision for
the assignment of presidential electors to what will become a
vestigial seat of government, with virtually no residents?
The Act satisfactorily addresses this question by providing
for the repeal of the provision of federal law that
establishes the current mechanism for District residents to
participate in presidential elections, pursuant to Congress's
authority under the Twenty-Third Amendment, as well as by
commencing the process for repealing the Amendment itself.
Initially, the Act provides for an expedited process for
repeal of the Twenty-Third Amendment, a process that should
move forward to ratification swiftly and successfully once
the Commonwealth is admitted as a State. None of the other 50
States has reason to seek to retain three electors for a
largely unoccupied seat of government.
But the Act also addresses the possibility that the Twenty-
Third Amendment is not
[[Page H4384]]
promptly repealed by mandating the immediate repeal of the
provision of federal law that provides the current mechanism
for District residents to participate in federal elections.
In 1961, following the adoption of the Twenty-Third
Amendment, Congress exercised its enforcement authority by
enacting legislation (codified at 3 U.S.C. Sec. 21),
providing that the District residents may select presidential
electors; the votes of the electors are currently awarded to
the ticket prevailing in the District's presidential
election.
The existing statutes fall within the broad authority
granted to Congress by the Twenty-Third Amendment to define
the terms of, and effectuate, the District's participation in
presidential elections. The Amendment allows for the
appointment of a number of Electors ``in such manner as the
Congress may direct.'' The Amendment also allows Congress to
select the number of Electors the District may receive,
subject only to a maximum: The District may participate in
the presidential Electoral College through the appointment of
no more electors than those of the smallest State, i.e.,
three. And section 2 of the Amendment grants Congress the
power to ``enforce'' the provision ``by appropriate
legislation,'' as it did in 1961.
But once Congress acts again, pursuant to its express grant
of constitutional authority, and repeals the legislation that
creates the existing procedure for District residents to
select presidential electors, that will remove the
legislative provision providing for the District's
participation in presidential elections. Without such a
provision, there is no mechanism for identifying the Capital
area's electors or allocating their votes.
Some scholars have questioned whether that approach is
satisfactory. They contend that the Twenty-Third Amendment is
self-enforcing, and effectively mandates the appointment of
electors on behalf of the District of Columbia, regardless of
whether such appointment is called for under a federal
statute. Some of us disagree; indeed, the very existence of
Section 2 of the Amendment makes clear that enabling
legislation is required to effectuate the District's
participation in the presidential election process. And
Congress's 1961 enforcement legislation supports this
interpretation.
Even if this self-enforcement argument were to be accepted,
however, Congress could easily address it by replacing the
current law mandating that the Capital area's electors vote
in accordance with the outcome of the popular vote in the
District with a new legislative mandate that the Capital
area's electors vote in other ways. For example, Congress
could require District electors to vote in favor of the
presidential ticket that receives the most Electoral College
votes (of the remaining 538 electors). Or, alternatively,
Congress could require that District electors vote for the
winner of the national popular vote winner.
A recent Supreme Court decision confirms that a legislative
directive to the Capital area's electors would be
enforceable. The Twenty-Third Amendment provides that the
District ``shall appoint'' electors ``in such manner as
Congress may direct''; this language is a direct parallel to
the Constitution's grant of broad authority to each of the
States to appoint and instruct their respective electors. In
its recent decision in Chiafalo v. Washington, the Supreme
Court held that electors do not have discretion to decide how
to cast their Electoral College votes, but rather are legally
bound to follow the instructions given by their respective
states.
As Columbia Law School Professors Jessica Bulman-Pozen and
Olatunde Johnson have observed, it follows from the Court's
holding in Chiafalo that Congress could legally bind any
electors to vote in accordance with the overall vote of the
Electoral College or the national popular vote, just as the
existing enabling statute currently binds them to vote in the
Electoral College in accordance with the outcome of the
popular vote in the District.
In sum, none of the critics' constitutional objections to
the D.C. Admission Act are meritorious; and the contention
that a constitutional amendment is required to admit the
Commonwealth into the Union is incorrect. The D.C. Admission
Act calls for a proper exercise of Congress' express
authority under the Constitution to admit new states, a power
that it has exercised 37 other times since the Constitution
was adopted.
Courts are unlikely to second-guess Congress's exercise of
its constitutional authority to admit the Commonwealth into
the Union. Apart from the fact that the legal objections to
admission of the Commonwealth as a State are without merit,
it is also unlikely that the courts will ever consider those
objections. As Mr. Dinh has observed, the decision whether to
admit a state into the Union is a paradigmatic political
question that the Constitution expressly and exclusively
assigns to Congress. The Supreme Court has long, and
strenuously, avoided adjudicating disputes respecting matters
that the Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the
coordinate, elected branches.
The remaining objections to Statehood do not concern
applicable constitutional law, but rather matters of policy.
For example, some have argued that the District should not
be admitted to the Union because it is a single city and have
instead proposed that most of the District's territory be
retrocessioned to Maryland. There is, however, no
constitutional barrier to a large, diverse city, with a
population comparable to that of several existing States,
joining the Union. Furthermore, the Maryland retrocession
proposal is subject to many of the same supposed
constitutional objections raised by those who object to
statehood for the District. For example, retroceding the
District to Maryland would decrease the size of the remaining
federal enclave, which objectors to District Statehood have
claimed is constitutionally impermissible. A forced merger of
the District and Maryland would also do nothing to address
the purported constitutional objection to leaving the
residual seat of government with three potential electors,
pursuant to the terms of the Twenty-Third Amendment, prior to
the Amendment's repeal.
Opponents also argue that Congress should not grant the
District statehood because it will lead to a lawsuit. But any
court challenge will be without merit, and indeed likely will
be dismissed as presenting a political question. We
respectfully submit that Congress should not avoid exercising
its express constitutional authority to admit the
Commonwealth into the Union because of meritless threats of
litigation.
Sincerely yours,
Caroline Fredrickson, Georgetown University Law Center;
Erwin Chemerinsky, University of California, Berkeley School
of Law; Stephen I. Vladeck, University of Texas Law School;
Franita Tolson, University of Southern California, Gould
School of Law; Jessica Bulman-Pozen, Columbia Law School;
Leah Litman, University of Michigan Law School; Laurence H.
Tribe, Harvard Law School; Paul Smith, Georgetown University
Law Center; Geoffrey R. Stone, University of Chicago Law
School; Peter Edelman, Georgetown University Law Center;
Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law
School; Eric Segall, Georgia State College of Law; Trevor
Potter, Campaign Legal Center.
Gregory P. Downs, University of California, Davis; Larry
Sabato, University of Virginia; Aziz Huq, University of
Chicago Law School; Jennifer Hochschild, Harvard University;
Neil S. Siegel, Duke University School of Law; Beau Breslin,
Skidmore College; David C. Vladeck, Georgetown University Law
Center; Sanford Levinson, University of Texas at Austin
School of Law; Ira C. Lupu, George Washington University Law
School; Peter M. Shane, Ohio State University Moritz College
of Law; Ira P. Robbins, American University Washington
College of Law; Michael Greenberger, University of Maryland
Francis King Carey School of Law; David Pozen, Columbia Law
School.
Mark Tushnet, Harvard Law School; Michael C. Dorf, Cornell
Law School; Miguel Schor, Drake University School of Law;
David S. Schwartz, University of Wisconsin Law School;
Caroline Mala Corbin, University of Miami School of Law;
Jonathan Askin, Brooklyn Law School; Aziz Rana, Cornell Law
School; John Mikhail, Georgetown University Law Center;
Richard Ford, Stanford Law School; Richard Primus, University
of Michigan Law School; Joseph Fishkin, University of Texas
Law School; Kate Masur, Northwestern University; Chris
Edelson, American University.
Ms. NORTON. The D.C. statehood bill, H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C.
Admission Act, grants D.C. residents full local self-government and
voting representation in Congress. H.R. 51 reduces the size of the
Federal District from 68 square miles to 2 square miles, consisting of
the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, The National Mall and
remaining under the control of Congress.
The new State consists of the residential and commercial areas of
D.C. The new State has a larger population than two States, pays more
Federal taxes per capita than any State, and pays more total Federal
taxes than 21 States.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the D.C. Policing
Protection Act, keep their hands off D.C. and free D.C.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from
Representative Min that clarifies that he meant to vote ``yes'' on H.R.
5143 in committee.
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, September 15, 2025.
Chairman James Comer,
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Comer: I am writing to respectfully clarify
my intent regarding a vote I cast during the House Oversight
and Government Reform full committee markup held on September
10, 2025. Because of miscommunication during the evening vote
series, my recorded vote on H.R. 5143, the District of
Columbia Policing Protection Act, does not reflect my
intended position.
For the record, I meant to vote ``Aye'' on the final
passage H.R. 5143, which repeals restrictions on the
circumstances under which law enforcement officers in the
District of Columbia may engage in vehicular pursuits. I ask
that this letter be included in the committee's official
record to reflect my intent.
Thank you for your understanding.
Sincerely,
Dave Min,
Member of Congress.
[[Page H4385]]
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. McIver).
Mrs. McIVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with deep concern for our
Nation's Capital, also known as chocolate city.
The four Republican bills on the floor this week are a direct attack
on the people of this city, particularly the Black and Brown
communities who have called D.C. home for generations.
These are residents who have built thriving small businesses, who
have received an education from the D.C. school system, residents who
have raised families and who call themselves proud Washingtonians since
birth.
This bill, H.R. 5143, would impose the President's twisted vision of
justice on D.C., overriding the autonomy of this city and hurting the
people who live here.
Enabling deadly vehicle pursuits of suspects in the city, as a former
councilwoman and a council president of the largest city in New Jersey,
I know firsthand that this is dangerous. That is on top of the other
bills that we are debating this week that seek to strip D.C. of its
autonomy, force more juveniles into the justice system, expand the
President's gross overreach, and make things worse.
The bills proposed by my Republican colleagues will worsen the
already rampant injustices we see in the criminal justice system, make
law enforcement more dangerous, and steal the futures of many of our
youth.
These bills all send the same statement to Washingtonians: The
administration does not believe you have the same right to dignity as
other parts of this Nation.
If Congress truly wants to make our Nation's Capital as safe as it
can be, we would listen to the residents of D.C. and their elected
leaders who have lived experiences of what this community needs. The
dog whistles used to justify these bills are not true. The D.C.
Government has long taken a proactive approach to reducing crime in the
District and today is experiencing a three-decade low in crime.
D.C. has done this in part by having a police force that looks like
the very people it is sworn to protect, lives in the community it
serves, and caters to the unique needs of D.C. residents.
The Speaker pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute
to the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
Mrs. McIVER. H.R. 5143 discourages basic public safety, pushes lies
about crime in the Black and Brown communities, and puts everyone in
harm's way and at risk.
That is why it is no surprise of who the sponsor is of this very
dangerous and wicked bill. This bill is dangerous, once again, and a
complete disaster to this community.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, let me just diplomatically
address a couple of the accusations here regarding the nature of my
bill.
The gentlewoman acknowledged that there is danger involved, yes. Yes,
enforcing the law is dangerous. This is why the professional law
enforcement officers across the country, including here in D.C., are
incredibly well vetted and trained and equipped to make decisions in a
matter of seconds or less to pursue criminals and to enforce the law.
It is dangerous work. It is dangerous for the officer. It can result
in injury or death for the criminal. It can result in injury or death
for innocent Americans, but let us never forget that the interaction
was initiated by the criminal. Mr. Speaker, enforcing the law is
dangerous work.
What is more dangerous, Mr. Speaker, is failure to enforce the law.
What is more dangerous for every community, including our Nation's
Capital, for which this body has a responsibility to stand, is failure
to give discretion for enforcement of law to the very law enforcement
professionals that you have trained and equipped and placed on the
streets. To not allow those professionals to make decisions and enforce
a law, that is incredibly dangerous.
My bill stands on the side of the citizenry of D.C. in an effort to
enforce the law by fully empowering the police officers of D.C. to
engage criminal conduct and enforce the law.
{time} 1300
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ivey).
Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding, and I rise
in strong opposition to the gentleman's bill.
I appreciate my colleague from Louisiana. We have had a chance to
serve together on committees. I know he has a strong respect for law
enforcement, so I am not saying his heart is in the wrong place, but I
am saying this bill is wrong. I say that from personal experience.
He is right, I was never in an active car pursuit, but I was a
prosecutor here in Washington, D.C., and for 8 years in Prince George's
County, which is the eastern border of Washington, D.C., so I have seen
the results of some of these high-speed chases.
The bill that is drafted, that he has proposed, actually takes away a
reasonable balance that was drawn by the people here of the District of
Columbia, as is their right for a democracy.
Also, one of the things we need to keep in mind, and my colleague
addressed this kind of briefly but, frankly, skipped over it, what
happens when that chase leads to the death of innocent civilians?
When the gentleman said he had been in 100 car chases, a chill went
through my body, I have to say, because I have seen the results, the
deadly consequences of some of these car chases. When you have to go
talk to that family and tell them why their loved ones died, you don't
want to have to say that it was over something minor like a stolen car.
The balance that the city struck was that it should be for an
imminent violent offense, high-level felony, something like that that
you really understand why they would have engaged in the pursuit. This
bill would take that away and expand it open so that you could have
high-speed chases taking place with respect to misdemeanors.
This isn't a hypothetical for me. When I was the State's attorney in
Prince George's County, we actually had one of these. We had several,
but I will just pick one for purposes of time. A police officer saw a
stolen motorcycle zip down the beltway and decided to pursue it.
Stealing a motorcycle is a misdemeanor and speeding is a misdemeanor,
but he decided to pursue it anyway.
Mind you, this is during rush hour, so he had to pursue on the border
of the road, and speeds got up to over 100 miles an hour on the beltway
in rush hour. Of course, it is hard for a car to catch a motorcycle,
especially when it can weave in and out of traffic.
He didn't make the apprehension, but what he did do as he was
speeding along on the side of the road at 100-plus miles an hour was
come across debris on the road, and he tried to swerve to avoid it.
When he did that, the car jumped over the Jersey barrier between the
two lanes and took him into the opposite lane of oncoming traffic.
The car jumped over, hit the top of a car coming the opposite
direction, and killed two men on their way to a concert. They had
nothing to do with any kind of high-speed chase. They didn't have
anything to do with any kind of criminal activity. These were people
who were good folks, actually just visiting in the area--one was from
Buffalo--who died because of a high-speed chase over a minor
misdemeanor. That doesn't make any sense. It is not like that only
happens in Prince George's County.
Here in Washington, D.C., we had a similar kind of case. It was back
in 2016. It led up to a deadly chase on East Capitol and Benning Road.
The chases the gentleman was talking about, maybe those were rural
areas, but those are high-traffic areas even in the nighttime.
Sometimes these pursuits take place during the day.
This led to the death of an innocent man. This was over a stolen car.
Think about what you would say to that family when you are explaining
to them that their father, brother, or son lost his life over a stolen
car.
Then the other part that influences me--again, I represent Prince
George's
[[Page H4386]]
County now--but sometimes when they start high-speed chases in D.C.,
they go into Prince George's County, Montgomery County, or Northern
Virginia, and we lost someone during a high-speed chase on the
Baltimore-Washington Parkway; another stolen car case.
When we make these decisions about when a chase is permitted or
should be permitted or not, we need to keep in mind that there can be
deadly consequences from when this happens, and it frequently occurs.
It is not like this is unusual. The Washington Post just did a piece
about the Park Police. There have been 10 of these instances in recent
weeks.
I have a couple last points. One is liability. The Federal Government
is going to put this burden on the city.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bost). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2
minutes to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. IVEY. When that liability arises from a car chase ending in death
that didn't make any sense to a jury, the city could be on the hook for
millions of dollars. I guarantee they are not going to step in and have
the Federal Government cover that for them. When we think about these
things, we need to keep all of those things in mind.
The last point I will make, a variation on the home rule argument.
D.C. is not a rural jurisdiction. In fact, its roads aren't even as
straightforward as Manhattan. We have got diagonal roads that cut
across, we have circles, and we have very dangerous intersections. I
wish my colleagues knew how tricky it can be out there. A high-speed
chase in the middle of the District of Columbia, even during the middle
of the day is almost, by definition, dangerous almost under any
circumstances, so you better have a really good reason to engage in a
pursuit like that.
That is not the balance that is drawn by this bill. That is not the
balance that was drawn by the people of the District of Columbia. It
should be the balance, and they should make the call because when the
deaths happen, my colleagues won't be anywhere to be found.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
I strongly oppose this bill. D.C.'s elected leaders have set clear,
commonsense limits on high-speed chases and limits that save lives. I
just remind folks that States like Texas, Florida, and Tennessee
recognize the danger and restrict pursuits to violent crimes or
imminent deaths, and D.C. follows that same practice.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this
commonsense legislation to allow police officers in the District of
Columbia to pursue and apprehend criminals to keep residents and
visitors in the District safe. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 707, the
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GARCIA of California. 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.
____________________