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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I speak in opposition to this effort to overturn President Biden's veto of H.J. Res. 42, legislation that was introduced by Georgia Representative Clyde to strike down the people of Washington, D.C.'s local police reform law.

If it rings a bell, it is no wonder. The House and Senate have already voted on H.J. Res. 42. The overwhelming majority of Democrats voted to oppose it when Republicans brought it to the floor in April. When it reached President Biden's desk in May, he vetoed Mr. Clyde's resolution, as he promised that he would.

Although the resolution narrowly passed the House and Senate, in neither Chamber did it assemble anywhere close to the two-thirds majority required in both Chambers in order to override a veto.

Mr. Speaker, today's vote is an exercise in time-wasting and vainglorious futility. The Republican majority doesn't have the votes to override the veto, and it doesn't deserve to.

H.J. Res. 42 would nullify a law passed unanimously by the Council of the District of Columbia representing more than 700,000 residents to promote accountability for police officers who use excessive force or abuse their power, a goal that the vast majority of Americans share.

The D.C. law bans the use of chokeholds and other dangerous neck restraints and sets reasonable standards for the use of deadly force.

It requires public release of body-worn camera footage and creates a police officer misconduct database, but only for officers who have been either convicted of a crime or for whom allegations of abuse have been civilly or administratively sustained.

The law prohibits D.C. from hiring police officers who have engaged in prior criminal or official misconduct.

Most importantly, the new law empowers the chief of police to fire or discipline officers who break the law by removing police disciplinary matters from the collective bargaining table.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you may recall that this is the position that galvanized the opposition to D.C.'s law. This provision is why Republicans want the Congress of the United States to behave like a 535-Member nationally elected super-city council with the power to overturn the work of the 13-member Council of the District of Columbia elected locally by the actual residents of Washington, D.C.

So what is so important about this provision? Well, the local police union doesn't like it, and they have been the chief lobbyists against it. They sued when this reform legislation was first passed in D.C., asserting that the provision removing police discipline from the collective bargaining table violated the U.S. Constitution, but they lost their case in the U.S. District Court for D.C. and the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C., and the Supreme Court failed to grant cert.

Now, in their haste to kick around the people of Washington and not to support D.C. police officers who, after all, came to our defense on January 6, many of whom were wounded by the insurrectionists and ended up with broken fingers and arms and legs, and so on, our GOP colleagues are suddenly embracing the extreme position on police disciplinary matters which has already been rejected by the courts in which jurisdictions across America are debating and doing away with.

Now, why is the ending of discipline of police officers a subject for collective bargaining such a big deal? Well, Washington itself is a good example.

The D.C. Metropolitan Police Department has been forced by labor arbitrators to rehire a significant number of officers who had been fired for engaging in serious criminal misconduct, including criminal assault, including sexual assault.

Every D.C. police chief for at least the last 25 years have expressed outrage about having to hire bad cops after they have been fired for engaging in serious misconduct. Forcing police chiefs to reinstate bad cops fired for breaking the law is bad for public safety, bad for community trust, and bad for morale among the vast majority of good police officers who are doing their jobs, like the ones who came to defend us on January 6, 2021, against the violent mob insurrection incited by the former President.

This should not be a partisan point. This is a matter for local decisionmaking in Washington, D.C., as it is in every other jurisdiction in the country.

Mr. Speaker, 700,000 tax-paying American citizens have decided through their locally elected representatives that the chief of police who is appointed by the Mayor should be able to discipline bad actors within the police department. Reversing the D.C. government on this local matter is outrageous interference by Congress to impose a bad public policy on the Capital City.

The D.C. police accountability law makes reasonable, commonsense reforms that will make the D.C. police more accountable to the community of people they serve, increase public trust, and strengthen public safety.

In fact, multiple provisions constituting the D.C. police reform law are mainstream reforms that enjoy strong public support and are congruent with the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which passed the House in the 117th Congress, and with police accountability laws enacted by dozens of States and localities in recent years in the wake of notorious episodes of brutality, like the unconscionable murder of George Floyd.

For example, since May of 2020, at least 24 States have enacted legislation to limit the use of dangerous neck restraints against citizens; 39 States have passed reforms related to officer education and training.

Twenty-six States have enacted laws to improve data collection and increase transparency. At least seven States, including Arizona, Colorado, and Wisconsin, have passed legislation requiring the publication of police databases or use-of-force information. Twenty States since 2020 have enacted laws that address State-level use-of- force standards.

This is a matter for States and localities to decide themselves. Reversing D.C. on this local matter is an outrageous effort to impose bad public policy on the people of D.C.

Voting to override the veto of this GOP resolution is yet another attack on local decisionmaking, federalism, and the policies of meaningful oversight and accountability that the majority of Americans want. A vote to override the veto today is a vote against political democracy and local self-government in America. A ``yes'' vote today is a vote against commonsense oversight and accountability over policing in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for democracy, stand up for political self-determination, and vote ``no'' on this attempt to override the President's veto.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source