[House Report 118-33]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
118th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 118-33
======================================================================
DISAPPROVING THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL IN
APPROVING THE COMPREHENSIVE POLICING AND JUSTICE REFORM AMENDMENT ACT
OF 2022
_______
April 6, 2023.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______
Mr. Comer, from the Committee on Oversight and Accountability,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.J. Res. 42]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Oversight and Accountability, to whom was
referred 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, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon
without amendment and recommends that the resolution do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Summary and Purpose of Legislation............................... 2
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 2
Section by Section Analysis...................................... 5
Legislative History.............................................. 5
Committee Consideration.......................................... 5
Roll Call Votes.................................................. 5
Explanation of Amendments........................................ 7
List of Related Committee Hearings............................... 7
Statement Of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the
Committee...................................................... 7
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 7
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch..................... 7
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 7
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.............................. 8
Federal Advisory Committee Act Statement......................... 8
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement........................... 8
Earmark Identification........................................... 8
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 8
New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost
Estimate....................................................... 8
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 9
Minority Views................................................... 10
SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION
H.J. Res. 42 disapproves and nullifies the Comprehensive
Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, enacted by
the Council of the District of Columbia (DC). H.J. Res. 42,
which follows statutorily required formatting as specified by
the D.C. Home Rule Act, imposes untenable barriers that D.C.
police officers must overcome and strips officers of their
right to collectively bargain on disciplinary matters.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\D.C. Code Sec. 1-206.04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Emergency
Amendment Act and the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform
Temporary Amendment Act were initially passed by the D.C.
Council on a temporary basis on June 8, 2020.\2\ Since its
initial passage, the Emergency Amendment Act has been re-
authorized by the Council seven times and the Temporary
Amendment Act has been re-authorized four times by the
Council.\3\ On June 15, 2021, D.C. Councilmembers Allen,
Nadeau, Henderson, T. White, George, Gray, Bonds, Pinto,
Silverman, McDuffie, R. White, Cheh, and Chairman Mendelson
introduced B24-0320, the Comprehensive Policing and Justice
Reform Amendment Act of 2021.\4\ On December 20, 2022, the
Council passed the bill 13-0, and the bill was sent for
signature by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who declined to sign the
legislation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Legislative Information Management System (LIMS), D.C. Council
(last visited Mar. 30, 2023), https://lims.dccouncil.gov/searchresult/
documentSearch=false&searchString=policing%20and%20justice.
\3\Id.
\4\B24-0320--Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment
Act of 2021, D.C. Council (last visited Mar. 30, 2023), https://
lims.dccouncil.gov/Legislation/B24 0320.
\5\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution grants
Congress the exclusive authority to govern the District of
Columbia.\6\ Congress has since delegated this authority,
through the Home Rule Act of 1973, to the locally elected
government in D.C. However, Congress retains the right to take
action against legislation passed by the D.C. Council if it so
chooses.\7\ Under the Home Rule Act, the DC Council chairman
must transmit copies of any legislation passed by the Council
and signed by the Mayor to the Speaker of the House and the
President of the Senate for review.\8\ To invalidate a D.C. law
through the Home Rule Act process, Congress's joint resolution
of disapproval must receive a simple majority vote and
presidential assent before a statutorily defined 30 day layover
period (60 days for legislation amending D.C.'s criminal code)
has lapsed.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\U.S. Const. art. 1, Sec. 8, cl. 18.
\7\D.C. Code Sec. 1-206.01.
\8\Christopher M. Davis, Congressional Disapproval of District of
Columbia Laws Under the Home Rule Act, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (Feb. 27,
2023), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12119.
\9\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the view of the Committee that the D.C. Council's
Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022
creates undue burdens on D.C. police officers, unduly strips
D.C. officers of their right to collectively bargain over
disciplinary matters, and creates mechanisms for activists and
anti-police groups to target individual officers through a
public database.\10\ This legislation comes at a time when the
Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) is seeing large numbers of
officers lost to early resignations--often citing the Council's
restrictive laws as reasons for leaving.\11\ In fact, according
to the National Fraternal Order of Police, the MPD has seen
approximately a third of its officers leave the force (approx.
1,190 officers)--with 40% representing resignations.\12\ In a
February 2023 oversight hearing before the D.C. Council, D.C.
police Chief Robert Contee notes the MPD needs 800 additional
officers to get to what he would consider to be full
strength.\13\ The MPD currently maintains approximately 3,400
officers in its ranks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Act of 2022, D.C.
Council B24-0320, https://lims.dccouncil.gov/downloads/LIMS/47448/
Signed_Act/B24-0320-Signed_Act.pdf.
\11\Megan Cloherty, DC's police chief says recruiting officers is
harder due to new laws, WTOP NEWS (Feb. 24, 2023), https://wtop.com/dc/
2023/02/dc-police-chief-blames-recruiting-struggles-on-new-laws/.
\12\Letter from Patrick Yoes, National President, National
Fraternal Order of Police, to Kevin McCarthy, Speaker of the House,
Hakeem Jeffries, Minority Leader of the House, et. al. (Mar. 28, 2023),
https://fop.net/letter/h-j-res-42-a-resolution-disapproving-the-
adoption-of-the-comprehensive-policing-and-justice-reform-amendment-
act-cpjraa-by-the-washington-d-c-city-council/.
\13\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the view of the Committee that the Council's
legislation would only increase the lack of retention currently
seen at the MPD, which is unacceptable during a period of
escalating crime in the city. Homicides are up 33 percent from
2022, motor vehicle thefts are up 109 percent from 2022, theft
is up 20 percent from 2022, sexual abuse is up 83 percent, and
total crime is up 24 percent from 2022.\14\ D.C. has 671,803
residents as of July 1, 2022, and welcomed 19.1 million
visitors in 2021.\15\As crime continues to challenge the
District, its residents, and the millions of yearly visitors,
the Committee does not believe that policing reform legislation
that presents new challenges for the District's officers is the
answer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\District Crime Data at a Glance, Metro. Police Dep't D.C. (Apr.
4, 20230, 2:45 PM), https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/district-crime-data-
glance.
\15\United States Census, Quick Facts--District of Columbia (July
1, 2022), https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/DC.; Lori Aratani, D.C.
sees a boost in visitors, but full recovery remains elusive, The
Washington Post (August 31, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 29, 2023, the House Committee on Oversight and
Accountability held a hearing titled ``Overdue Oversight of the
Capital City: Part 1.''\16\ This hearing was held to conduct
long overdue oversight of the D.C. Council and gain insights
into the city's crime crisis. The Committee was able to hear
directly from D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson,
Councilmember Charles Allen, D.C. Police Union Chairman
Greggory Pemberton, and D.C. Chief Financial Officer Glen
Lee.\17\ During this hearing, the Committee discussed the
troubling crime statistics and the Council's lack of support to
the various law enforcement agencies within the District.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Overdue Oversight of the Capital City: Part 1 Before the H.
Comm. on Oversight & Accountability, 118th Cong. (2023), https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPRw94SSMxk.
\17\Id.
\18\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Functionally, the provisions of Comprehensive Policing and
Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 serve to continue
restricting officers from being able to safely and promptly
carry out their law enforcement duties on behalf of the
residents and visitors of Washington, D.C. Specifically,
Subtitle B of the Act restricts officers from using their body
camera footage in writing their reports, stripping them of an
invaluable resource especially during public interactions that
happen quickly. Subtitle L strips the D.C. Police Union of the
right to collectively bargain over disciplinary matters,
leaving the Mayor with discretion over discipline. And Subtitle
X creates a mechanism for the disclosure of all disciplinary
records or complaints against an officer, whether substantiated
or not. These documents include personally identifiable
information of officers and lacks protections for officer
family members, which will likely lead to targeting and
harassment of police officers.
Furthermore, the Act presents various reforms that will
inhibit expeditious officer discipline. Subtitle C removes
officers and police union representatives from the Office of
Police Complaints Board, forgoing any opportunities for
individuals with firsthand experience to provide their
perspective during the disciplinary process. Subtitle M
introduces troubling ``Officer Discipline Reforms'' including
the removal of the requirement that the Department commence any
disciplinary actions within a 90-day window. Removing this
requirement to promptly investigate the facts of a complaint
leaves the Department to await a full investigation by the
Complaints Board--which under Subtitle C has had all officers
and police union representatives removed--or an internal
affairs division before disciplinary proceeding may be
concluded. This means an officer's career may be put on hold
for an indefinite period while disciplinary matters are
indefinitely investigated.
The Act also introduces barriers to the job of enforcing
the law and combatting crime in the District. Subtitle N
requires a jury to consider if an officer had consulted with
mental health, behavioral health, or social workers before the
use of deadly force. Deadly force is most often used during
moments when quick decision-making is essential to protect the
life of a member of the public and the officer; adding such
considerations for juries during deliberation places
increasingly undue burdens on officers. Subtitle P imposes
approval hurdles for the use of riot gear and less-lethal
projectiles which introduces the risk of placing officers in
dangerous positions without the ability to don protective riot
gear and utilize non-lethal tactics to avoid death or serious
injury when responding to violent demonstrations.
In addition to endorsements from the D.C. Police Union and
the U.S. Capitol Police Labor Committee, police organization
across the nation have endorsed H.J. Res. 42, including the
National Fraternal Order of Police (NFOP), the National
Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), the California
Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations, the Fullerton Police
Officers' Association, and the Las Vegas Police Protective
Association.\19\ These endorsements of the disapproval
resolution demonstrates how the D.C. Council's police reform
Act is viewed by police jurisdictions across the nation as a
harmful legislative precedent for policing and law enforcement
in America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\Letter from Gregg Pemberton and Gus Papthanasiou, United States
Capitol Police Labor Committee, to the U.S. House of Representatives
(on file with author); Letter from Patrick Yoes, National President,
Fraternal Order of Police to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (March 28,
2023) (on file with author); Letter from William J. Johnson, Executive
Director of the National Association of Police Organizations to House
Speaker Kevin McCarthy (March 30, 2023) (on file with author); Letter
from Craig Lally, Juan Viramontes, and William Young, California
Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations, to the California
Delegation, U.S. House of Representatives (Date)(on file with author);
Letter from Kevin Pedrosa, Fullerton Police Officers' Association, to
Rep. Lou Correa, U.S. House of Representatives (date)(on file with
author); Letter from Jack Abel, Las Vegas Police Protective
Association, to Senators Rosen and Cortez Masto, Representatives Titus,
Lee, Horsford, and Amodei (March 20, 2023) (on file with author).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act
of 2022 does not encourage police officers to work in the
District, but rather would deter them. While restrictive
requirements and increasing anti-police rhetoric and
legislation are continuing to be presented by the Council,
officers will look to neighboring jurisdictions and departments
for employment. The residents of D.C. deserve to feel safe in
their city, and the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform
Amendment Act of 2022 does not provide the mechanisms to make
that happen. H.J. Res. 42 nullifies this legislation and
ensures the Council will listen to its constituents and
stakeholders to provide common-sense reforms that do not
undermine the safety and security of the District.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
H.J. Resolution 42 resolves that Congress disapproves of
the action of the District of Columbia Council described as The
Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022
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.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
H.J. Resolution 42, Disapproving the action of the District
of Columbia Council in approving the Comprehensive Policing and
Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, was introduced on March
9, 2023, by Representative Clyde. The resolution was referred
to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
On March 29, 2023, the Committee met in open session and,
with a quorum being present, began consideration of H.J.
Resolution 42 Disapproving the action of the District of
Columbia Council in approving the Comprehensive Policing and
Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022. The resolution was
ordered reported on March 29, 2023.
ROLL CALL VOTES
There was 1 roll call vote during consideration of H.J.
Resolution 42. This roll call vote was on final passage of H.J.
Resolution 42. The resolution was agreed to in a recorded vote
of 21-17.
EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS
During Committee consideration of the H.J. Resolution 42,
no amendments were offered.
LIST OF RELATED COMMITTEE HEARINGS
In accordance with House rule XIII, clause 3(c)(6), (1) The
following hearing was used to develop or consider H.J.
Resolution 42:
On March 29, 2023, the Committee held a hearing titled
``Overdue Oversight of the Capital City: Part 1'' with Mr. Phil
Mendelson, Chairman, D.C. Council; Mr. Charles Allen,
Councilmember, D.C. Council; Mr. Glen Lee, Chief Financial
Officer, Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Greggory Pemberton,
Chairman, D.C. Police Union.
(2) The following related hearing was held:
On March 29, 2023, the Committee held a hearing titled
``Overdue Oversight of the Capital City: Part 1'' with Mr. Phil
Mendelson, Chairman, D.C. Council; Mr. Charles Allen,
Councilmember, D.C. Council; Mr. Glen Lee, Chief Financial
Officer, Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Greggory Pemberton,
Chairman, D.C. Police Union.
STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the Background and Need for
Legislation section above.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee's performance
goals or objectives of this resolution are to disapprove the
action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the
Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of
2022.
APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a
description of the application of this bill to the legislative
branch where the bill relates to the terms and conditions of
employment or access to public services and accommodations.
This resolution does not relate to employment or access to
public services and accommodations in the legislative branch.
DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
In accordance with clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII no provision
of this resolution establishes or reauthorizes a program of the
Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal
program, a program that was included in any report from the
Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to
section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a
program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance.
DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS
This resolution does not direct the completion of any
specific rule makings within the meaning of section 551 of
title 5, U.S.C.
FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT
The Committee finds that this resolution does not direct
the establishment of advisory committees within the definition
of Section 5(b) of the appendix to title 5, U.S.C.
UNFUNDED MANDATES STATEMENT
Pursuant to section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 the Committee has included a letter received from the
Congressional Budget Office below.
EARMARK IDENTIFICATION
H.J. Resolution 42 does not include any congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as
defined in clause 9 of rule XXI of the House of
Representatives.
COMMITTEE ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee includes below a cost
estimate of the resolution prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of
Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the
Congressional Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows:
H.J. Res. 42 would disapprove the District of Columbia
Council's enactment of the Comprehensive Policing and Justice
Reform Amendment Act of 2022 (D.C. Act 24-781). That act made
permanent changes to the District of Columbia's police
procedures that had been instituted on an emergency basis in
2020. Because the resolution would not affect the federal
budget, CBO estimates that implementing H.J. Res. 42 would have
no cost to the federal government.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew
Pickford. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss,
Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
The requirements of clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives do not apply to H.J. Res. 42.
MINORITY VIEWS
We strongly oppose H.J. Res. 42, which would nullify the
District of Columbia's Comprehensive Policing and Justice
Reform Amendment Act of 2022, because we support home rule for
D.C., and because we support improving public safety and public
trust in law enforcement at the federal, state, and local
levels.
DEMOCRACY AND D.C. AUTONOMY
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines democracy as
``government by the people'' and ``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.''\1\ By
definition, the United States is a democracy, but its capital
is not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Merriam-Webster, Definition of ``Democracy'' (online at
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy) (accessed Mar. 30, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The principles of no taxation without representation and
consent of the governed helped launch the American Revolution
and are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. Yet, D.C.
residents, who pay all federal taxes, have no voting
representation in Congress, and Congress has plenary authority
over D.C.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Majority claims Congress has a constitutional duty to
legislate on local D.C. matters. That is false. The Majority
chooses to legislate on local D.C. matters only when it thinks
it can score political points.
Despite giving Congress plenary authority over D.C., the
Framers expected Congress to establish a local government for
D.C.\3\ Indeed, Congress has established various forms of local
government for D.C. since 1802.\4\ The U.S. Supreme Court has
held that ``there is no constitutional barrier to the
delegation by Congress to the District of Columbia of full
legislative power.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\``[A] municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from
their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them.'' The Federalist
No. 43, at 240-241 (James Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961).
\4\House Committee on the District of Columbia, Governance of the
Nation's Capital: A Summary History of the Forms and Powers of Local
Government for the District of Columbia, 1790 to 1973, 101st Cong.
(1990).
\5\District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., Inc., 346 U.S.
100, 109 (1953).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1973, Congress passed the D.C. Home Rule Act, which
established an elected chief executive (the D.C. Mayor) and an
elected legislature (the D.C. Council) for D.C.\6\ The intent
of the Home Rule Act is to, among other things, ``grant to the
inhabitants of the District of Columbia powers of local self-
government'' and to ``relieve Congress of the burden of
legislating upon essentially local District matters.''\7\ H.J.
Res. 42 contravenes the intent of the Home Rule Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Pub. L. No. 93-198 (1973).
\7\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The D.C. Council passed the Comprehensive Policing and
Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 twice, as required by the
Home Rule Act, by votes of 11 to 0 and 13 to 0.\8\ D.C. Mayor
Muriel Bowser and D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson have urged
Congress to oppose H.J. Res. 42.\9\ President Joe Biden has
also expressed opposition to H.J. Res. 42. In a press
statement, White House officials indicated that the President
would veto H.J. Res. 42 if it came to his desk, noting that
``Congress should respect D.C.'s right to pass measures that
improve public safety and public trust.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\D.C. Act 24-781 (online at https://lims.dccouncil.gov/downloads/
LIMS/47448/Signed_Act/B24-0320-Signed_Act.pdf).
\9\Letter from District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser and Council
of the District of Columbia Chair Phil Mendelson to Senate Majority
Leader Charles Schumer, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker
of the House Kevin McCarthy, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries
(Mar. 17, 2023).
\10\Biden Would Veto Measure to Block D.C.'s Policing Bill, White
House Says, Washington Post (March 30, 2023) (online at
www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/03/30/biden-veto-dc-policing-bill-
congress/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The D.C. Council has 13 members, who are elected by, and
accountable to, D.C. residents. Congress has 535 voting
members, none of whom are elected by, or accountable to, D.C.
residents. Congress should not act as a super-legislature for
D.C.
Instead of undemocratically interfering in local D.C.
matters, Congress should finally pass the D.C. statehood bill,
H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act. The legislation
would admit the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth into
the Union and reduce the size of the District of Columbia, or
the federal district.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\The State would consist of 66 of the 68 square miles of the
current federal district, and the federal district would consist of two
square miles, including the White House, the Capitol complex, the
Supreme Court, the principal federal monuments, and the federal
buildings adjacent to the National Mall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Admissions Clause of the Constitution gives Congress
the authority to admit new states.\12\ Congress has admitted
all 37 new states by simple legislation. The District Clause of
the Constitution gives Congress plenary authority over the
federal district and establishes a maximum size of the federal
district (100 square miles).\13\ Congress has the authority to
reduce the size of the federal district, as it has previously
done.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\U.S. Const. art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 1.
\13\U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Constitution does not establish any prerequisites for
new states, but Congress has generally considered three
criteria in evaluating new states: commitment to democracy;
support for statehood; and population and resources.\14\ D.C.
meets all three criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Government Accountability Office, Experiences of Past
Territories Can Assist Puerto Rico Status Deliberations (Mar. 7, 1980)
(online at www.gao.gov/assets/130/128964.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D.C. residents have been petitioning for voting
representation in Congress and local self-government for more
than 200 years.\15\ Most recently, on November 8, 2016, D.C.
residents approved a referendum advising D.C. to petition
Congress for statehood by a vote of 244,134 to 40,779.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\House Committee on the District of Columbia, New Columbia
Admission Act, 102nd Cong. (1992) (H. Rept. 102-909).
\16\District of Columbia Board of Elections, General Election
2016--Certified Results (Nov. 8, 2016) (online at https://
electionresults.dcboe.org/election_results/2016-General-Election).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D.C. has a larger population than two states.\17\ D.C. pays
more federal taxes than 23 states and pays more per capita
federal taxes than any state.\18\ D.C. has a higher per capita
personal income than any state.\19\ D.C. has a larger gross
domestic product than 16 states and a higher per capita gross
domestic product than any state.\20\ D.C.'s general obligation
bonds have the highest rating (Aaa) from Moody's Investors
Service.\21\ Federal funds are a smaller percentage of D.C.'s
revenue than federal funds are of total state revenue.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\Census Bureau, 2020 Population and Housing State Data (online
at www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/2020-population-
and-housing-state-data.html) (accessed Mar. 17, 2023).
\18\Internal Revenue Service, Internal Revenue Service Data Book,
2021 (online at www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p55b.pdf) (accessed Mar. 17,
2023).
\19\Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Release Tables: Per Capita
Personal Income by State, Annual (online at https://
fred.stlouisfed.org/release/tables?eid=257197&rid=110) (accessed Mar.
17, 2023).
\20\Bureau of Economic Analysis, Gross Domestic Product by State
and Personal Income by State, 3rd Quarter 2022 (Dec. 23, 2022) (online
at www.https://bea.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/stgdppi3q22.pdf).
\21\District of Columbia, Resilience: Annual Comprehensive
Financial Report 2022 (Jan. 24, 2023) (online at https://cfo.dc.gov/
sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/
FY%202022%20DC%20ACFR.pdf).
\22\The Pew Charitable Trusts, Pandemic Drives Federal Share of
State Revenue to Record High (Nov. 4, 2022) (online at
www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2022/10/18/
pandemic-drives-federal-share-of-state-revenue-to-record-high);
District of Columbia, FY 2020 Approved Budget and Financial Plan (July
25, 2019) (online at https://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/
ocfo/publication/attachments/DC_OCFO_2020_Budget_Vol_1_0.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY
D.C.'s Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment
Act of 2022 is beside the point, because we believe in home
rule for D.C., but we will address the legislation. We support
police officers, and we support accountability and transparency
for police officers. Public trust in law enforcement increases
public safety.
Since the police killing of George Floyd in 2020, dozens of
states and D.C. have enacted police accountability and
transparency reforms.\23\ The D.C. Council passed several
emergency and temporary measures focused on police
accountability and transparency legislation beginning in 2020.
The Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of
2022 is the permanent version of that emergency and temporary
legislation and, therefore, includes many provisions that have
been in effect for nearly three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\Howard Center for Investigative Journalism, States Approved
Nearly 300 Bills Affecting Policing in Wake of George Floyd's Murder
(Oct. 28, 2022) (online at https://cnsmaryland.org/2022/10/28/states-
approved-nearly-300-bills-affecting-policing-in-wake-of-george-floyds-
murder/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D.C.'s Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment
Act of 2022 is consistent with House Democrats' police
accountability and transparency legislation, the George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act, which passed the House in the 116th
and 117th Congresses.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\U.S. House of Representatives, Roll Call Vote on Passage of
H.R. 7120 (June 25, 2020) (yeas 236, nays 181); U.S. House of
Representatives, Roll Call Vote on Passage of H.R. 1280 (Mar. 3, 2021)
(yeas 220, nays 212).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D.C.'s Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment
Act of 2022 would improve public safety, accountability, and
transparency by: prohibiting the use of chokeholds and
asphyxiating restraints; requiring public release of the names
and body-worn camera recordings of officers directly involved
in an officer-involved death or serious use of force within
five days after the incident; restricting dangerous vehicular
pursuits by officers; requiring officers to exhaust all
reasonable alternatives before using deadly force;
strengthening civilian oversight of police; establishing a
public database of sustained allegations of officer misconduct;
making officer disciplinary records subject to release under
the D.C. Freedom of Information Act; and more.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\D.C. Act 24-781 (online at https://lims.dccouncil.gov/
downloads/LIMS/47448/Signed_Act/B24-0320-Signed_Act.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D.C.'s Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment
Act of 2022 would also increase accountability by removing
discipline from collective bargaining.\26\ The D.C. police
department has been forced to rehire a significant number of
officers it fired for serious misconduct, primarily because of
decisions by arbitrators.\27\ Every D.C. police chief for the
last 25 years has lamented having to rehire officers fired for
serious misconduct.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\Id.
\27\Office of the District of Columbia Auditor, 36 Fired MPD
Officers Reinstated; Receive $14 Million in Back Pay (Oct. 6, 2022)
(online at https://dcauditor.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/
2022/10/MPD.Personnel.Settlements.Report.10.6.22.pdf).
\28\Id.; D.C. Police Chief Faces Questions About Officer Integrity
at Public Safety Committee's Hearing, Washington Post (Jan. 24, 2014)
(online at www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/dc-police-chief-faces-
questions-about-officer-integrity-at-public-safety-committees-hearing/
2014/01/24/10c106d2-8504-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_story.html); District
of Columbia Police Reform Commission, Decentering Police to Improve
Public Safety: A Report of the DC Police Reform Commission (Apr. 1,
2021) (online at https://dccouncil.gov/police-reform-commission-full-
report/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Police misconduct not only undermines public trust, it
harms taxpayers. D.C. has paid millions of dollars in backpay
to officers it was ordered to rehire, and D.C. paid $91 million
to resolve claims alleging police misconduct over a recent 10-
year period.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\Id.; The Hidden Billion-Dollar Cost of Repeated Police
Misconduct, Washington Post (May 9, 2022) (online at
www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2022/police-
misconduct-repeated-settlements/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Majority tries to draw a causal link between D.C.'s
police accountability and transparency legislation and the
difficulty D.C. is having recruiting and retaining officers.
However, both public-sector employers 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 predates the police
accountability and transparency legislation enacted in the
aftermath of the killing of George Floyd. A survey conducted in
2019 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.''\30\ 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.''\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\International Association of Chiefs of Police, The State of
Recruitment: A Crisis for Law Enforcement (online at https://
theiacp.org/sites/default/files/239416_IACP_RecruitmentBR_HR_0.pdf)
(accessed Mar. 30, 2023).
\31\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Majority also seems to suggest that crime occurs only
in D.C. and other blue cities and states. In fact, the murder
rate is higher in red states than blue states. For each year
from 2000 to 2020, the murder rate in the 25 states that voted
for President Trump is higher than the murder rate in the 25
states that voted for President Biden. For each year since
2011, at least seven states that voted for President Trump in
2020 were among the ten states with the highest murder
rates.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\Third Way, The Two-Decade Red State Murder Problem (Jan. 27,
2023) (online at https://thirdway.org/report/the-two-decade-red-state-
murder-problem).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
All Americans are born equal; all of us have unalienable
rights, including the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness; government exists legitimately only resting on
the consent of the governed; and no people should be governed
or taxed without their own direct representation. For these
reasons, we strongly oppose H.J. Res. 42 and any other effort
to undermine the will of D.C. voters and their elected
representatives. The American citizens who live in D.C. want
statehood for D.C., and Congress should heed their calls.
Jamie Raskin,
Ranking Member, Committee on
Oversight and
Accountability.
Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Member.