Disapproving the Action of the District of Columbia Council in Approving the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022

Floor Speech

The good chairman of the committee invoked the name of Mayor Muriel Bowser, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, who sent us a letter with the chairman of the D.C. City Council, Phil Mendelson, which closes this way: ``Not only should our policy decisions not be overturned by officials not elected to represent our residents, but piecemeal interference hurts our ability to confront crime and improve public safety in the District of Columbia.''

What is this about, Mr. Speaker? H.J. Res. 42 seeks to nullify a law passed unanimously by the Council of the District of Columbia to promote accountability for police officers who use excessive force or abuse their power, a goal that the vast majority of Americans share.

The D.C. law banned the use of choke holds and other dangerous neck restraints and set reasonable standards on the use of deadly force. It required the public release of body-worn camera footage and created a police officer misconduct database for officers who have been convicted of a crime or had allegations against them civilly or administratively sustained. It prohibited D.C. from hiring officers who have engaged in criminal or official misconduct.

Most importantly for these purposes, Mr. Speaker, the new law empowered the chief of police to fire or discipline officers who break the law by removing police disciplinary matters from the control of arbitrators under collective bargaining. This is the provision that galvanized opposition to the bill from the police union, the key provision that has now led our colleagues to want to convert the Congress of the United States into the largest city council in the world, a 535-member city council with the job of micromanaging and superintending the work of the 13-member Council of the District of Columbia.

The local police union hates this provision, which is their right, of course. Their chief has been the chief lobbyist against Washington, D.C., on this law. He was the key GOP witness in the Oversight Committee hearing on the law.

His union sued when the legislation was first passed, asserting that it violated the U.S. Constitution not to subject the discipline of police officers to an outside arbitrator. They lost in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, they lost in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and the Supreme Court did not grant cert. Still, the union is running TV ads against this law and has obviously found friends on that side of the aisle.

Now, in their eagerness to kick around the more than 700,000 taxpaying American citizens who live in Washington, D.C., but have no voting representation in the House of Representatives or in the U.S. Senate, our colleagues are embracing a claim that puts them in favor of an extreme police union position on discipline that jurisdictions across America are debating and many of them are rejecting.

Why? Well, D.C. is a good example. Before passage of this law that they propose to repeal, the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department had been forced by labor arbitrators to rehire a significant number of policemen and -women who had been fired for engaging in serious criminal misconduct. Here are some examples of the officers who were fired but the department was forced to reinstate by an arbitrator.

One officer illegally struck a suspect multiple times in the head. The officer was criminally tried and convicted of criminal assault, sentenced to 30 days in jail, 3 years of probation, and 500 hours of community service. Despite strong opposition from the police department, he was reinstated by an arbitrator.

Another officer, off duty at the time, sexually assaulted a woman and was convicted of misdemeanor sex abuse and sentenced to a 100-day suspended sentence and a year of probation. Despite strong opposition from the department, he was reinstated to the force by an arbitrator.

Another off-duty police officer confessed to abusing a child. The officer was convicted of child abuse and sentenced to 5 years of probation. Despite strong opposition from the department, he was reinstated, as well.

Every D.C. police chief for at least the last 25 years has expressed outrage about the old system of having to rehire bad cops after they had been fired for perpetrating serious misconduct against the people of Washington, D.C.

Former D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham openly lamented that he had to allow ``very bad police officers back onto our department.''

Former Police Chief Charles Ramsey said this: ``It is demoralizing to the rank and file who really do not want to have those kinds of people in their ranks. It causes a tremendous amount of anxiety in the public. Our credibility is shot whenever these things happen.''

The current D.C. Police Chief, Robert Contee, says that giving the police the power over discipline reduces the risk of returning poor performers to the force.

Forcing police chiefs to reinstate bad cops fired for breaking the law is bad for public safety, it is bad for community morale, and it is bad for the morale of the vast majority of good cops who are doing their job.

It is also bad for taxpayers. Between 2010 and 2020, The Washington Post found that D.C. paid out $91 million to resolve claims of police brutality and misconduct. The taxpayers are also on the hook for backpay that was paid out to bad cops who were fired for this misconduct when they were rehired following the ruling of an arbitrator.

In a recent 5-year period, the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department was forced to rehire 36 officers. According to an Office of the D.C. Auditor report, D.C. had to pay $14.3 million in backpay to these convicted and disciplined officers.

The question of whether police chiefs or arbitrators should be the ones to decide to put disciplined cops back on the force is a matter for local decisionmaking in Washington as it is in every other jurisdiction in the country.

Mr. Speaker, 700,000 taxpaying American citizens have decided through their elected representatives that the chief of police, who is appointed by the Mayor of the District of Columbia, should be the one to be able to discipline bad actors within the police department.

Reversing the D.C. government on this local matter is outrageous interference by Congress to impose a bad public policy on the Capital City.

Mr. Speaker, just a few points about the last contribution from the gentleman from Georgia.

Georgia reported 892 murders in the last year, the fourth highest in the country. He said that Washington, D.C., is overrun by violent criminals. The only time I have seen an institution overrun by violent criminals was here in the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, an event that that gentleman described as a tourist visit and has consistently likened to a tourist visit. I don't know that he is going to be the best and most reliable witness for determining when an institution is being overrun by violent criminals.

The rhetoric I hear from the Freedom Caucus is about defunding the FBI and defunding the ATF. No one on our side of the aisle is talking about defunding any of them or defunding the police. On the contrary, we have advanced initiatives to increase local government funding for police and other services.

Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for her eloquent remarks and also for making the specific point that the D.C. reform legislation is perfectly congruent with the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which we passed in the 117th Congress.

In fact, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act goes further than D.C. went. D.C. did not touch qualified immunity, which was something that was dealt with in the Federal legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to correct one other piece of misinformation that was left by the gentleman from Georgia. He said that it is against the law under the D.C. law for a police officer to touch someone's neck. That is not the definition of the law against choke holds and neck restraints.

It requires the use of any body part or object by law enforcement against a person with the purpose, intent, or effect of controlling or restricting the person's airway or severely restricting the person's breathing. That does not involve just touching a person's neck.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Lee).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. (Ms. Norton).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her point, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, control over local police is an essential facet of political self-government and home rule. The people of Washington, D.C., through their representatives, need to be able to control their own local police. They also need to control their judges.

The problem, of course, is that right now the District of Columbia is caught betwixt and between. The people have made clear that they want to become a State. They organized a State and constitutional convention. They have petitioned for admission to the Union and are asking the Congress of the United States under Article IV of the Constitution to exercise our powers to admit them as a State and to redraw the boundaries of the Federal District given our exclusive power and our comprehensive power under the District clause to do that.

In fact, in 1846, Congress redrew the boundaries of the District of Columbia in order to retrocede to Virginia lands there, and that was perfectly constitutional. Today Congress can exercise its powers under Article I, section 8, clause 17 to modify the boundaries of the Federal District to cede the residential lands to the new State that is petitioning for admission to the Union.

The House of Representatives in the last two Congresses voted to admit the District of Columbia, or Washington, D.C., as the new State. The Senate did not act, yet their statehood drive continues.

Alas, our colleagues, rather than trying to help propel another State into the Union and to allow them to gain equal footing with all of the other States instead decides to try to micromanage their local affairs and to drive them back into some kind of semi-colonial status that they thought they had left behind many decades ago.

So the real question for the Congress of the United States is: Will we do for the people of Washington, D.C.--taxpaying, draftable citizens who have served in every war that the Republic has ever fought going back to the American Revolution--will we treat them the same way that we treated the people of 37 other States who were admitted by the original 13?

That is the dynamic of enlargement of democracy that was contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution and the Founders of the country. They did not want there to be large, colonized, and subjected populations subject to the will of other people for precisely the kind of reason that is on display today.

There is no reason why the local government of Washington should be lorded over and superintended by other people's Representatives no matter how well-intended they may be or how politically intended they may be or how malevolently intended they may be. The Framers of the Constitution and the people who fought the American Revolution rejected the idea of virtual representation.

That was the claim of the crown and the Parliament. They said: You don't need your own representatives because you are represented by people in Parliament who will be able to take into account your interests.

The revolutionaries rejected that saying that in real democracy people get to choose their own representatives, and those representatives elect their own council and their own mayor, and they get to choose their own police chief. They get to make their own decisions.

So really what we see today is a drama that reenacts the basic struggle for democratic self-government in our country. This is a chapter in that drama, but it will lead eventually--it must lead--to the admission of Washington, D.C., as a new State the way that 37 other States were admitted by the original 13, including my own Maryland, because those original States understood the logic of democratic equality and freedom in our country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the multiple provisions constituting the D.C. police reform law are mainstream, commonsense reforms unanimously passed by the Council of the District of Columbia which enjoyed strong public support and are perfectly congruent not only with the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which passed the House in the 117th Congress, but also with police accountability laws enacted by dozens of States and localities in recent years in the wake of notorious episodes of police brutality like the murder of George Floyd.

For example, since May of 2020, at least 24 States have enacted legislation to limit the use of dangerous neck restraints against citizens. Thirty-nine States have passed reforms related to officer education and training. Since May of 2020, 26 States have enacted laws to improve data collection and police transparency. At least seven States, including Arizona, Colorado, and Wisconsin, have enacted laws requiring the creation of public databases on use-of-force information.

States like Colorado, South Carolina, and Maryland have mandated adoption of body-worn cameras statewide. At least 20 States have enacted laws that address State-level use-of-force standards.

This joint resolution of disapproval is an attack on local decisionmaking, federalism, and the policies of oversight and accountability that Americans clearly want and that our committee as the oversight committee should be championing.

This resolution would result not only in less political democracy in America but less official oversight and accountability over policing in the Capital City. It is amazing to me that our colleagues will not even have a hearing on the desire of Washington with 700,000 taxpaying but unrepresented Americans to join the Union as a State, but they will mobilize all their energy to strip from the local D.C. police chief the power to discipline cops who commit crimes.

There seems to be no end to our colleagues' willingness to undermine good police work in Washington. Last month the most memorable thing they have done so far in the new Congress, Committee Republicans visited more than 20 January 6 insurrectionists living in D.C. jail-- the vast majority of whom are there because they were convicted of or charged with violently assaulting our police officers. Our colleagues liken the extremists who attacked our police officers to political prisoners--people like Nelson Mandela, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and Alexei Navalny. Those are people charged with ideological offenses against authoritarian regimes.

These prisoners they visited were charged with, and in many cases convicted of, violently assaulting American police officers.

This month now Republicans want to overturn a local law that allows the chief of police in D.C. to keep cops who commit crimes like drug dealing or sexual assault off the force. I don't blame the people of Washington or Ms. Norton for telling them to keep their hands off D.C.

Pressley).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Pelosi).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks.

Jackson Lee).

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the work of law enforcement across America. As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I have had the privilege of working with the FBI, the DEA, the ATF, the United States Marshals, and an array of law enforcement officers along with the Department of Homeland Security which we oversee as a member of the Homeland Security Committee.

I am wondering what is the basis of the intrusion in D.C. home rule with my friends who thought there was nothing more important to do than to intrude on a fully comprehensive police reform bill that was supported by the chief of police and others as it relates to addressing those who have involved themselves in conduct that police officers would not support.

That is the only reason that there is even an iota of opposition.

The bill tracks the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act with changes that are applicable and relevant to the people of the District of Columbia. It is non-offensive legislation.

I would wonder why my friends on the other side of the aisle would, in fact, be so against this bill when they did not help us with the Invest to Protect Act and the VICTIM Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. They didn't help us with the assault weapons ban that we are fighting, if I may call the roll: Uvalde, Nashville, Louisville, and in Alabama and on and on and on.

Mr. Speaker, I support the work of the District of Columbia, the Mayor, and the city council. I support their reform bill that is supported by police officers, and also, I support home rule.

Let us vote not to uphold the Republicans' legislation of disapproval.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to H.J. Res. 42--Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022.

This outrageous resolution would nullify the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, enacted by the Council of the District of Columbia.

This resolution is a bridge too far. While Republicans continue to put forth legislation that further divides our country and puts lives at risk, Democrats have continuously supported funding for law enforcement and putting Americans safety over politics.

For two congresses, Republicans have blocked the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, preventing us from making any substantive changes in policing accountability that would improve public safety nationwide.

In the absence of federal action, dozens of states and D.C. have taken steps to improve their law enforcement agencies since the death of George Floyd. These reforms have included restricting the use of neck restraints, improving standards for the use of force, and reforming police certification.

This resolution blatantly undermines Home Rule, and if my Republican colleagues really cared about the safety of the American people and law enforcement, they would have voted with Democrats on the various bills we previously put forth to improve public safety.

Now, Republicans are going a step further by seeking to undo D.C.'s work to improve law enforcement and Policy/Community relationships and promote public safety. They want to roll back all of the progress that has been made in police accountability.

While states, D.C., and House Democrats have consistently stood up for accountability in policing, advancing public safety, and improving the public's trust in law enforcement, Republicans are again defending rogue, lawless police officers who act with impunity. These rogue officers take lives and make all of us less safe as they erode public trust.

Take for instance, the recent case of Tyre Nichols in Memphis, the startling facts set forth in the Department of Justice's report on the Louisville Metro Police Department, or the audio recordings of McCurtain County Sheriff Kevin Clardy, Sheriff's Captain Alicia Manning, and Jail Administrator Larry Hendrix discussing killing journalists and lamenting that they could no longer lynch black people.

If Republicans cared about public safety and law enforcement, they would have supported the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act because we cannot have public safety without trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

Democrats don't just talk about law enforcement; we invest in law enforcement. Democrats have supported funding for law enforcement while Republicans have repeatedly voted against it.

Democrats have advanced the Invest to Protect Act which would have authorized $300 million in grants for law enforcement agencies with fewer than 125 officers. This legislation passed with bipartisan support, but 55 Republican members voted against it.

Democrats also advanced the VICTIM Act, led by Congresswoman and former law enforcement officer Val Demings, which would have would have provided grants--totaling up to $100 million per year--to law enforcement agencies to help them solve violent crimes. 178 Republicans voted against it.

My bill on supporting more money for victims, VOCA, is what we should be doing more of.

If Republicans really supported law enforcement, they would have joined Democrats in passage of the Assault Weapons Ban, which would take the weapons most used to target law enforcement off our streets. 208 Republicans voted against it.

Assault weapons pose a significant risk to law enforcement--one out of every five law enforcement officers killed by guns are killed by these weapons of war.

The Violence Policy Center performed an analysis of unpublished information from the FBI and determined that one of five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty in 2016 and 2017 were killed with assault weapons. They found that, during attacks in which multiple officers were killed, 75 percent of the officers were killed with an assault weapon.

But that's not it. There are many pieces of legislation that Democrats have offered that Republicans could have supported if they really supported law enforcement.

The Fighting Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Act of 2022; the Law Enforcement De-Escalation Training Act of 2022, the Active Shooter Alert of 2022, and the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2022.

I must also remind this body that when right wing extremists descended on the nation's Capital city, attacking citizens, and burning flags in church yards, Republicans stood back and stood by.

This resolution is yet another example of Republicans forcing their failed policies on all of us by any means they can, particularly in black and brown communities nationwide.

Whether it is unfairly blocking home rule and police accountability, hijacking the courts to restrict abortion access and bodily autonomy, taking over school districts, banning books, or attempting to overturn a fair election, we must hold the line and defend DC's right to self- governance. That is why I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Texas I think makes the essential point which is the people of Washington and their representatives are governing in their best interests. That is the essential gamble of democracy.

This is why American federalism is such a beautiful thing. The laws in Kentucky passed by the colleagues of my friend, the chairman of our committee, the laws in California, the laws in Alaska, the laws in South Carolina, and the laws in Washington, D.C., differ in certain ways. That is how federalism works.

It is a massive insult, indignity, and affront to the people of Washington, D.C., to pull the rug out from beneath their comprehensive effort to develop good policing in Washington, D.C.

There are lots of States and jurisdictions with higher crime rates. There are lots with lower crime rates. That is neither here nor there. Democracy is not something you earn by virtue of the crime rate or the inflation rate or the employment rate. Democracy is something you earn by virtue of natural rights that we have recognized under our Constitution, which is why our Constitution begins with the words ``We the People.''

The people of Washington, D.C. don't have complete rights yet, which is why they are fighting for statehood. The last thing we should be doing is driving them back to the worst days, which as former Speaker Pelosi evoked, when Congress micromanaged every little thing that took place in Washington.

It is not fair to the people of Washington, and it is a waste of our time.

If they think they have a good proposal that will end crime in America, let's do it nationally and make it apply to everybody. Otherwise, let's agree with the people from D.C.: Hands off Washington.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source