Jamie Raskin

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the minority leader and a member of the first House impeachment team.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus and a former member of the January 6th Select Committee.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean), a member of the second House impeachment team.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, we meet not to lower the costs of prescription drugs, nor to expand President Biden's infrastructure plan, nor to protect the voting rights of the people, nor to protect the healthcare choices of women across America because we know they are definitely not interested in that. No, we meet, rather, for another stop on the GOP's endless revenge tour against Democrats who dared to tell the truth about Donald Trump and his repeated sellouts and betrayals of the American people over the last 6 years. It is all about Donald Trump tightening his stranglehold over Republicans for the 2024 campaign and driving out anyone who dares to think for himself or herself. Don't take my word for it. Just read Friday's statement by the twice- impeached inciter of insurrection, sexual abuser, defamer of women, and indicted pilferer of national security secrets, war plans, and top- secret classified documents himself. On Friday, Trump posted this order to his followers in this unveiled threat to anyone who would dare to defy his control over the GOP: ``Any Republican voting against [Adam Schiff's] censure, or worse, should immediately be primaried.'' The Luna resolution is a weapon of mass distraction from Trump's indictment by a Florida grand jury on 37 Federal charges relating to obstruction and unlawful retention of defense information for storing dozens of classified, secret, and top-secret documents at his Florida resort in his bathroom, his bedroom, and beyond, and then refusing repeatedly for more than a year to return any of these official documents to the National Archives and the FBI. It is amazing to me that they have to change the subject from one of Donald Trump's current offenses against America to one of his older offenses, welcoming Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential campaign. Russia repeatedly intervened in the 2016 campaign to help Donald Trump, and that is not a matter of opinion. That is a question of direct, positive fact. Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the former FBI Director whose report is cited authoritatively by Mrs. Luna, found right at the beginning of his report that ``the Russian Government interfered in the 2016 Presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.'' Here is what the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, and the Office of the Director of the National Intelligence found in 2017: ``Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election.'' The Mueller investigation and the Moscow Project documented more than 250 episodes of collaboration and meetings between Russia and the Trump campaign, including Paul Manafort's repeated passing of campaign secrets, such as polling data, to Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian agent, and the infamous meeting on June 9, 2016, at Trump Tower led by Donald Trump, Jr., Jared Kushner, and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. Senator Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican, stated that the U.S. Senate bipartisan Select Committee on Intelligence ``found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling'' in the American campaign. The Mueller report, if you read it, makes no pronouncement on collusion, the punitive crux of the distinguished gentlewoman's complaint, because, as Mueller writes, ``collusion'' is not a legal offense or a legal concept. The whole question of Trump's collusion with Russia is in the realm of opinion, and most Americans would see a lot of collusive activity, all the way up to the present day when Donald Trump refuses even to take the side of the Ukrainian people against Vladimir Putin's filthy, bloody, imperialist invasion of their country, which has been filled with lies, atrocities, and war crimes. In any event, we don't censure Members over a difference of opinion. Mr. Speaker, we are seeing the complete ethical collapse of a once- great political party. The Republican Party began as a pro-freedom, antiracist, pro-immigrant, anti-Know-Nothing party. It has become an authoritarian cult of personality taking orders from an inciter of insurrection, bully, and braggart whose rage toward Mike Pence and whose spectacular disrespect for the rule of law endangered not only our entire constitutional order but everyone in this room. The party of Lincoln and his Lincolnites has become the party of Luna and her Luna followers. Today's madcap antics are an obvious deflection from Trump's deepening legal troubles. His allegedly criminal conduct in pilfering, hoarding, and refusing to return national security documents has caused his own Attorney General, William Barr, to say that: ``Trump's conduct is indefensible. . . . He is not a victim here. He was totally wrong.'' And, ``There is no excuse for what he did here.'' Yesterday, Representative Boebert offered a resolution of impeachment against President Biden. The GOP simply has no ideas for our economy, no ideas for our country, and no ideas for our people but is on an embarrassing revenge tour on behalf of Donald Trump, who treats them like a ventriloquist dummy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 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. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman kindly for his courtesy in granting me this time. Today is June 13. We have had 164 days in the year 2023, and we have had 291 mass shootings. We are having, on average, 1\1/2\ mass shootings every single day in America. Of course, our colleagues would prefer not to talk about it because they say it is impolite to talk about a mass shooting on the day it happens. With that theory, we would never talk about it, and we would continue ad infinitum into the carnage and the bloodshed that this unlimited, open-arms policy is giving America today. A number of my colleagues have invoked the Second Amendment. They only quote half of it. They say: `` . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'' What about the first half of it? ``A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'' They say we want to repeal the Second Amendment. Mr. Speaker, we don't want them to repeal the Second Amendment. We want them to read the Second Amendment because the Second Amendment would ask us why we are allowing people to go into elementary schools, Walmarts, supermarkets, churches, and synagogues all over America with AR-15s enabled sometimes with a stabilizing brace--as in Dayton, Ohio; Boulder, Colorado; Colorado Springs; Nashville, Tennessee--and assassinate our people. If a foreign government were doing it, we would declare war on them, but since we are just allowing the gun industry to spread these weapons of mass destruction around the country, they want to allow it. They say that the Second Amendment must be respected in this strange and distorted way because they believe the Second Amendment gives people the right to overthrow the government. This insurrectionist theory of the Second Amendment means that the people must have an arsenal equal to that of the government. Well, it is very hard to explain the rest of the Constitution, then. The Second Amendment doesn't mention anything about rebellion or insurrection.

Mr. RASKIN. Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 says Congress has the power to call forth the militias from the States in order to ``suppress insurrections.'' Does that sound like a pro-insurrection document to you? How about the Republican Guarantee Clause? Congress shall guarantee to the people of the States a republican form of government and assist them in putting down domestic violence. How about the treason clause, which says that treason shall consist of levying arms against the Union? I could give you six more examples like that, but why don't we pause on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which says that anybody who has sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and violates that oath by engaging in insurrection or rebellion shall never be allowed to hold Federal or State office again. That is not the meaning of our Constitution. The regulation the administration has adopted is perfectly constitutional, so if you want more bloodshed, just stand for that. It has got nothing to do with the Second Amendment. It is perfectly constitutional for us to engage in reasonable gun safety regulation. Check out Heller v. The District of Columbia. Justice Scalia wrote that opinion.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a true man of faith, Bishop William J. Barber II, who is stepping down from his ministry at North Carolina's Greenleaf Christian Church after serving his congregation and community for 30 years with love and devotion. Under Rev. Dr. Barber's remarkable leadership, Greenleaf Church blossomed into a vibrant parish proclaiming the gospel in all aspects of community life. He secured investments to provide the community with a childcare center, computer literacy job training, affordable housing for families, a low-income senior living facility, a celebrated after- school program, a restaurant, a free community garden, a gang- prevention program, and an HIV/AIDS ministry. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he kept services going and grew a massive online ministry. During Rev. Dr. Barber's tenure, seven individuals have received a call to ministry from Greenleaf and have gone on to complete Master of Divinity and doctoral degrees, and three of them now pastor other congregations. As an active community leader, Rev. Dr. Barber famously built a powerful grassroots coalition to advocate for moral public policy in the North Carolina General Assembly, leading the way to expand ballot access, increase the state minimum wage and pass the Racial Justice Acts challenging the racist application of the death penalty. This coalition, which grew into the Forward Together movement, also helped secure the freedom of several innocent Black men who had been awaiting execution on death row. In 2013, the coalition's ``Moral Monday'' demonstrations mobilized tens of thousands of people to protest voter suppression and other acts of what Rev. Dr. Barber calls ``policy violence.'' In 2015, Rev. Dr. Barber founded Repairers of the Breach, a nonpartisan, interfaith movement that advances moral and constitutional values to combat policies affecting the most vulnerable communities. After a 26-state ``moral revival'' tour in partnership with the Kairos Center for Religion, Rights & Social Justice, Rev. Dr. Barber and Repairers of the Breach re-launched the Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival in 2018. This powerful movement is continuing the work of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and other leaders who first launched the Poor People's Campaign in 1968 to build a broad, interracial movement for economic justice. Under Rev. Dr. Barber's leadership, the revived Poor People's Campaign has built a national community of hundreds of organizations committed to addressing the interlocking injustices of poverty, racism, ecological devastation, militarism and religious nationalism. Rev. Dr. Barber's extraordinary eloquence and moral passion have uplifted the fortunes of countless Americans. He previously served as president of the North Carolina NAACP and on the National NAACP Board of Directors. He has published four books and hundreds of articles, and inspired the introduction of a Third Reconstruction Resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives during the 117th Congress. Rev. Dr. Barber earned a bachelor's degree from North Carolina Central University, a Master of Divinity from Duke University, and a doctorate from Drew University with a concentration in Public Policy and Pastoral Care. He has had ten honorary degrees conferred upon him. Yale Divinity School recently honored Rev. Dr. Barber by naming him as Founding Director of the Center for Public Theology and Public Policy. I hope that the House will join me in celebrating Bishop William J. Barber II for his three decades of selfless service at the Greenleaf Christian Church and for his contributions to our Nation as a moral movement leader. I look forward to continuing to work together for many years to come.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that the validity of the public debt shall not be questioned. We made a commitment to every Social Security recipient in America, to Medicare and Medicaid recipients, to the veterans, to the bondholders of the United States, that we would pay our debts, as we are fiscally, morally, politically, and constitutionally required to do. Yet, Donald Trump has issued the order. He said it is inevitable, default on the debt of the United States for the first time in American history, crash the economy, lose 9 or 10 million jobs. Now, in the words of Florida Representative Matt Gaetz, who appears not to be here right now: The GOP will not negotiate with their hostage. Who is the hostage? The American people are the hostage. Our government is hostage. The Constitution is hostage. I introduce to the MAGA Republicans who have split today, but who increased the debt ceiling three times under Donald Trump, who gave us a quarter of all the debt of the United States between George Washington and Joe Biden, I introduce them to the Constitution of the United States: The validity of the public debt shall not be questioned.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. RASKIN. May I inquire how much time is remaining, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 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. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 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, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Lee).

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.