District of Columbia Policing Protection Act

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill, which would overrule rules implemented by D.C.'s elected leaders on when Metropolitan Police officers should pursue a fleeing car.

Our debate here is a perfect example of why D.C. needs self-rule. We should be clear. High-speed chases are deadly. They often end in needless deaths, injuries, and devastating property damage.

Over 3,000 people died in police car chases in the U.S. between 2017 and 2022. Half of those deaths were innocent bystanders not involved in the chase. I will repeat. Half of the people who have died in police car chases were innocent bystanders. That should alarm every single one of us.

Across the country, Republican-led States have recognized the dangers of high-speed cases. States like Texas, Florida, and Tennessee have all implemented tighter standards to limit pursuits of violent criminals or imminent threats. They know the risks are too high for people who are innocent or could get caught up in one of these car crashes. That is the best practice, and D.C. is following the same path.

But my Republican colleagues want to interfere. They want to lower the standards to allow for more chases and more innocent people getting hurt.

I will remind us that this District is dense. Sidewalks oftentimes are small. Streets are tight. There are a lot of folks who live here. We should not have a one-size-fits-all policy for D.C. We should allow the people of D.C. to decide when a car chase is appropriate.

Congress should not require D.C. police to use tactics that the community does not want. D.C. residents should be empowered to decide when to authorize their police to use dangerous tactics.

Under current D.C. law, pursuits are allowed if a fleeing suspect has committed a violent crime, for example, or poses an imminent threat to public safety and if the pursuit can be done in a way that minimizes the risk to innocent people.

We should not lower these standards, and certainly not with zero community input and no consultation with the D.C. Council, Mayor, or other folks who are actually trying to manage this city.

There are many tools, we know, that police officers can use to track suspects and make arrests. We should let the Council, the Mayor, and the police work together with the D.C. police to balance public safety, pedestrian safety, and proportionality. If D.C. residents don't like it, they can vote their elected officials out of office.

Today, Congress is again injecting itself as some sort of super city council to write laws for Washington, D.C. As a former mayor of 8 years, I worked with over 700 amazing men and women of a police department who were heroic in the work that they did. I know that, in conversations with our chief, our police officers, and our community, these decisions are best left to our communities to write the laws of when these police chases should actually go into effect.

While I appreciate the author and my friend, this bill, I believe, is unnecessary. It undermines home rule, and it will make D.C. less safe.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins) also for his service in law enforcement. I know that he is trying to help and trying to move public safety forward. I know that is his intention, but I just want to clarify a few things.

It has been mentioned that this committee or this bill has somehow been heard by a committee. We have not held a hearing on these bills. To clarify, our hearing on D.C. is actually tomorrow. There has been no coordination with the Mayor or the D.C. Council. They oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will clarify. It has been mentioned a few times when we have debated this bill that there are somehow 14 criteria that officers have to consider before engaging in a pursuit.

The law is very clear. The suspect must have ``committed or attempted to commit a crime of violence, or poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury,'' and the pursuit is ``necessary to protect another person'' from ``serious bodily injury''; and not likely to cause injury to others; and ``all other options have been exhausted or do not reasonably lend themselves to the circumstances.'' That is actually what the law says.

I just wanted to note that. I am not sure what those 14 criteria are.

Norton).

I strongly oppose this bill. D.C.'s elected leaders have set clear, commonsense limits on high-speed chases and limits that save lives. I just remind folks that States like Texas, Florida, and Tennessee recognize the danger and restrict pursuits to violent crimes or imminent deaths, and D.C. follows that same practice.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GARCIA of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source