[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.