[Pages H2589-H2594]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROTECTING OUR NATION'S CAPITAL EMERGENCY ACT

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 489, I call up
the bill (H.R. 2096) to restore the right to negotiate matters
pertaining to the discipline of law enforcement officers of the
District of Columbia through collective bargaining, to restore the
statute of limitations for bringing disciplinary cases against members
or civilian employees of the Metropolitan Police Department of the
District of Columbia, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Malliotakis). Pursuant to House
Resolution 489, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended
by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, printed in the
bill, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 2096

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Our Nation's
Capital Emergency Act''.

[[Page H2590]]

SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF EQUITABLE AND FAIR TREATMENT OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

(a) Restoration of Right to Negotiate Matters Pertaining to
Discipline of District of Columbia Law Enforcement Officers
Through Collective Bargaining.--Section 1708 of the District
of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of
1978 (sec. 1-617.08, D.C. Official Code), as amended by
section 116(b) of the Comprehensive Policing and Justice
Reform Amendment Act of 2022 (D.C. Law 24-345), is amended by
striking subsection (c).
(b) Restoration of Statute of Limitations for Claims
Against Members or Civilian Employees of Metropolitan Police
Department.--Subtitle M of title I of the Comprehensive
Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 (D.C. Law
24-345) is repealed, and any provision of law amended or
repealed by such subtitle is restored or revived as if such
subtitle had not been enacted into law.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, or
their respective designees.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).

General Leave

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2096, sponsored by Mr.
Garbarino, the Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act.
The men and women of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department serve
the community every day to keep this District safe and secure.
On January 4, 2023, the D.C. Council passed the Comprehensive
Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022. The act stripped
D.C. police officers of certain employee protections, making the job
more difficult despite rising crime in the District.
When the D.C. Council passed this law, Congress acted swiftly in a
bipartisan, bicameral fashion to overturn it. The House and Senate
passed H.J. Res. 42, which would have overturned the entire D.C. law,
with 14 House Democrats and 6 Senate Democrats joining Republicans in
support of the resolution.
However, then-President Biden vetoed the bipartisan resolution of
disapproval, allowing the harmful policies of the D.C. Council to
remain in effect today.
In another attempt to protect the D.C. police, Representative
Garbarino introduced this bill to repeal certain provisions of D.C.'s
Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act. That bill
passed through the Oversight Committee last Congress in 2024 and was
reintroduced this Congress, again, favorably reporting out of the
Oversight Committee, but now with the full support of the White House.
H.R. 2096 restores D.C. police officers' right to collectively
bargain over disciplinary matters and reinstates clear timelines for
disciplinary investigations.
H.R. 2096 also repeals the D.C. Council's requirement that the time
and place of some adverse action hearings be posted to a public
website.
This public posting requirement enables antipolice activists to
harass officers attempting to pursue their due process in the
workplace.
In summary, this legislation is necessary to support the recruitment
and retention of the Metropolitan Police Department.
Washington, D.C., cannot afford to continue to lose police officers
during the ongoing crime crisis in the Nation's Capital city.
My colleagues recognize the importance of supporting the law
enforcement officers who risk their lives to protect our communities.
By restoring employee protections, this legislation gives the
Metropolitan Police Department officers the due process they need to
confidently do their job.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I am strongly opposed to H.R. 2096, which would repeal
provisions of a law enacted by the District of Columbia. Madam Speaker,
D.C. deserves the right to govern itself. The Supreme Court has held
that Congress can delegate full legislative authority to the District
of Columbia for local matters. However, Republicans choose not to do
so.
Police officers are entrusted with extraordinary authority to protect
public safety. The vast majority of officers exercise it honorably and
bravely. However, there must be accountability and transparency for
instances in which officers violate their oath of office.
H.R. 2096 would repeal provisions of a 2023 D.C. law that made it
easier for the police department to discipline officers for crimes and
serious misconduct. Before that law, the department had been forced to
rehire a significant number of officers it had fired for crimes and
official misconduct.
Let me provide examples of the types of officers the department had
to rehire: officers convicted or arrested for child abuse, sexual
assault, indecent exposure, drunk driving causing injuries, domestic
violence, and assaults while off-duty. D.C. also had to provide
millions of dollars in backpay to those officers it was forced to
rehire. D.C. also had to pay millions of dollars to resolve police
officer misconduct lawsuits.
Before the 2023 D.C. law, every single D.C. police chief, for at
least the prior 25 years, has requested more authority to discipline
officers. H.R. 2096 would inexplicably revoke this authority. By
bringing H.R. 2096 to the floor, Republicans are declaring they know
better than the D.C. police chiefs how to run the department.
Let's hear what some of these D.C. police chiefs have had to say
about this authority. Let's start with former Chief Peter Newsham. He
said that he had to allow ``very bad police officers back into our
department.''
Former Chief Charles Ramsey said: ``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.''
Former Chief Robert Contee said that this authority would ``help
reduce the risk of returning poor performers to the force. . . . ''
Following the devastating murder of George Floyd, D.C. enacted the
Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, which,
in pertinent part, made it easier for the police department to
discipline officers. H.R. 2096 would repeal that discipline provision
in that law.

H.R. 2096, as introduced, includes a purpose section. The purpose is
``to combat the rise in violent crime in our Nation's Capital by
eliminating policies which place law enforcement personnel of the
District of Columbia at risk and discourage them from serving, ensuring
that such personnel will be treated equitably and fairly and the
recruitment and retention of such personnel shall be increased.'' We
are not surprised that the version of H.R. 2096 on the floor today does
not include that purpose section since it is inaccurate.
Violent crime is not rising here in D.C. In 2025, violent crime in
D.C. is down 22 percent compared to the same period in 2024. In 2024,
violent crime in D.C. was the lowest in over 30 years. Let me repeat.
Violent crime is falling in D.C. and is at a 30-year low in the
District of Columbia.
The D.C. Police Department is not alone in having difficulty in
recruiting and retaining police officers. Police departments of all
sizes across the country have had this difficulty for many years. A
survey conducted in 2019, before jurisdictions across the country
enacted police accountability and transparency legislation after the
murder of George Floyd, 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. . . . ''
H.R. 2096 would repeal four discipline provisions.

[[Page H2591]]

First, H.R. 2096 would repeal a provision that removed police officer
discipline for collective bargaining. Several States, including States
represented by Republicans, prohibit collective bargaining by police
officers. The 2023 D.C. law maintained the right of police officers to
collectively bargain, except over discipline, and maintained the civil
service protections and due process rights of officers.
Collective bargaining by police officers has been widely criticized
for protecting police officers from discipline. A Republican staff
report for the Joint Economic Committee said: ``Collective bargaining
plays a significant role in shielding police officers from the
consequences of their misconduct. . . . ''
Second, H.R. 2096 would reinstitute a 90-day statute of limitations
on the police department to commence discipline. The 2023 D.C. law
repealed that provision because 90 days was not enough time, in some
cases, to commence discipline. Adjudicators had overturned discipline
because the department had exceeded the 90-day statute of limitations.
There is no statute of limitations for most D.C. employees. The home
State of the sponsor of H.R. 2096 has an 18-month statute of
limitations to commence discipline against police officers.

{time} 1430

Third, H.R. 2096 would repeal a provision that gave the police chief
the authority to increase the discipline proposed by a police trial
board, which consists of police officers. Before the 2023 D.C. law, the
police chief could only impose or reduce the proposed discipline or
order a new trial. The D.C. law increased the discipline power of the
chief and reduced the discipline power of the trial board, which may be
more inclined to protect their fellow officers from discipline.
Fourth, H.R. 2096 would repeal a provision that required the police
department to publish on a public website a schedule of officer
discipline hearings which are open to the public. The House of
Representatives itself publishes on a public website a schedule of its
committee hearings.
I close with a question and a plea. If Republicans support police
officers, why hasn't Speaker Johnson installed the plaque honoring the
brave police officers, including D.C. officers, who defended this
Capitol on January 6? Federal law requires its installation by March
15, 2023, more than 2 years ago.
That plaque in honor of officers who were killed defending the
Members of this Congress, defending this institution, is apparently
sitting in a closet. The families of those officers who were killed and
beaten that day are waiting for the due respect that is owed to their
husbands, sons, and fathers.
The more than 700,000 D.C. residents who have all the obligations of
citizenship, including paying Federal taxes and serving in our Nation's
wars, deserve voting representation in Congress and full home rule. I
call on the House of Representatives to pass H.R. 51, the Washington,
D.C. Admission Act.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Garbarino), the sponsor of the bill.
Mr. GARBARINO. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R.
2096, the Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act.
Washington, D.C., is facing a public safety crisis. Last month alone,
20 people were shot and killed in the District of Columbia. In recent
years, D.C. was rated the fifth deadliest city in America.
At the core of the problem is a dangerously understaffed police force
brought about by reckless policies. Law enforcement in D.C. has been
left without basic bargaining rights or procedural protections,
something my colleagues on the other side usually support, but for some
reason here they are against it.
This guts MPD's ability to recruit, retain, and respond. The result
is consistently high crime rates and a staffing shortfall of about 800
officers that puts both police and residents at risk. I mean, I don't
know if people forget, just under 2 years ago, one of our own
colleagues was mugged at gunpoint several blocks from the Capitol. That
might not have happened if we weren't understaffed by about 800
officers in Washington, D.C.
When we undermine law enforcement, we embolden the criminals.
Congress has a constitutional duty to ensure the MPD can effectively
combat crime and keep Washingtonians safe. This legislation restores
fairness and support for the men and women who risk their lives to keep
our capital secure. If Washington, D.C., won't fix this problem, it is
our job to.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and send a clear message:
We stand with law enforcement and will not allow D.C. to spiral further
into lawlessness.
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose this antidemocratic
bill, which would repeal provisions of a law enacted by the locally
elected District of Columbia Government. The over 700,000 D.C.
residents, the majority of whom are Black and Brown, are capable and
worthy of local self-government.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record three letters, including a
letter from D.C.'s locally elected Chief Executive, Mayor Muriel
Bowser, opposing this bill; a letter from every Member of D.C.'s
locally elected legislature, the Council, opposing this bill; and a
letter from D.C.'s locally elected attorney general, Brian Schwalb,
opposing this bill.

May 21, 2025.
Hon. James Comer,
Chairman, House Oversight Committee,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Gerald Connolly,
Ranking Member, House Oversight Committee,
Washington, DC.
Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Connolly: As Mayor of
Washington, DC, I write to express my Administration's
opposition to H.R. 2096, the ``Protecting Our Nation's
Capital Emergency Act of 2025''. This legislation purports to
protect hardworking police officers from unnecessary,
protracted disciplinary procedures. However, it would reverse
common-sense disciplinary reforms adopted by the District to
the sole benefit of those few Metropolitan Police Department
(MPD) officers who engage in egregious, sometimes criminal
misconduct and seek to evade accountability.
A 2022 report by the District of Columbia Auditor
documented the shortcomings of the prior disciplinary
process. It chronicled the cumbersome, union-negotiated
process that on average took eight years to resolve a
termination case. Over the 18-month period considered in the
audit, 36 terminated police officers were reinstated within
five and a half years of their terminations, at a cost of
over $14 million in backpay to DC taxpayers. This process was
neither efficient for the officers nor responsible to the
residents of the District.
The conduct for those terminated officers included criminal
acts such as sexual assault, sexual abuse, indecent exposure,
solicitation of prostitution, domestic violence, receiving
stolen property, fraud, and false statements. For many of
those cases, the misconduct was not in dispute; and in nearly
40 percent of the reinstatements, labor arbitrators applied
their own, often conflicting, interpretations of procedural
requirements and ordered reinstatement without even
considering the merits of the cases.
The Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act
of 2022 removed serious police discipline from collective
bargaining and introduced additional transparency and
accountability measures to address these systemic problems.
This new process has been in place for more than two years
and has been a success. Members are still entitled to union
representation throughout the process and MPD policy still
requires disciplinary cases to commence timely within 90
days, although those deadlines are tolled during criminal
investigations.
Under the new system, members have a right to be heard, in
person, before any discipline is imposed, and the vast
majority of disciplinary cases are resolved by agreement.
While labor arbitrators have been removed from the process,
members still have the right to appeal their discipline to
the independent Office of Employee Appeals (OEA). OEA has
upheld the two termination cases it has considered under the
new system--one originally overturned on a timing
technicality involving a member who worked unauthorized
outside employment while on duty, accepted gratuities, and
made untruthful statements; and another where the member had
repeated alcohol-related misconduct, including driving under
the influence, public intoxication, and being the subject of
a Substantial Risk Order that prohibited him from possessing
a firearm. While the sample size is small, these sustained
terminations are unquestionably the right outcomes for MPD,
our residents and visitors, and the local and national
elected officials that MPD serves.
The law enforcement disciplinary reforms implemented by the
District were long overdue. They transformed a process where
the determination of whether or not an officer is

[[Page H2592]]

fit to wear the badge rests not with an unaccountable labor
arbitrator, but with the official who bears ultimate
responsibility for those members' conduct--the Chief of
Police. I urge you once again to reject H.R. 2096, the
``Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act of 2025,''
and to support the work of my Administration, including the
Chief of Police, to maintain these critical accountability
measures for officers that engage in egregious and criminal
misconduct.
Sincerely,
Muriel Bowser,
Mayor.
____

Council of the District of Columbia,

Washington, DC, June 9, 2025
Hon. Mike Johnson,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries: We write to
express our opposition to three pieces of legislation we
understand will be considered on the House floor this week.
All three bills would repeal provisions in laws that were
carefully and deliberately enacted by the Council for the
benefit of all District residents.
H.R. 2096 would repeal several efforts by the Council to
ensure that police officers who violate the law and
contravene public safety are appropriately disciplined. The
bill would strip the Chief of the Metropolitan Police
Department (MPD) of the authority to discipline officers who
violate the law or MPD policy. It would also limit the MPD
Chiefs discretion to impose disciplinary penalties greater
than those recommended by the board investigating the
allegations made against an officer. Stripping MPD management
of its authority in this area would greatly undermine both
MPD and public safety. A 2022 D.C. Auditor's report
catalogued cases where MPD was barred from firing officers
who had committed sexual and domestic violence, who were
arrested for assorted criminal activity, or who gave false
statements, misused their firearms, or slept on the job. H.R.
2096 would also restore a 90-day statute of limitations for
claims against police officers that, in the past, was
repeatedly used by officers seeking to avoid accountability.
Every MPD Chief for the past 15 years has supported this
reform because it empowers police leadership--not a third-
party board or arbitrator--to determine the appropriate
standards of conduct and discipline for their officers.
Congress should not substitute its authority for that of
local elected leaders and MPD Chiefs who have examined these
issues closely.
We support having a robust and strong police force and work
closely with MPD leadership to provide them with the tools
they need to make the city safe. Part of that effort includes
ensuring that the force can appropriately remove officers who
violate the law, MPD policies, and the public trust. When the
public trusts that MPD can effectively police its own,
residents are more likely to cooperate in investigations and
more likely to assist in prosecution, making the District
safer. H.R. 2096 would make it harder for law enforcement
leadership in the Nation's Capital to remove bad actors who
undermine that trust.
We also oppose H.R. 884, which would repeal a 2022 law
extending voting rights in local District elections to non-
citizen residents. Non-citizens enjoy similar voting rights
in 15 other jurisdictions, including San Francisco and
Oakland, California, Montpelier, Vermont, and a number of
jurisdictions in neighboring Maryland. It continues to be
unlawful for non-citizens to vote in federal elections in the
District. In fact, federal law has prohibited non-citizens
from voting in federal elections since 1996. Our local law
cannot and does not attempt to change that.
Finally, we oppose H.R. 2056, which attempts to negate
provisions in local District law governing how MPD and other
District agencies participate in federal immigration
enforcement efforts. This law has been on the books for 13
years and makes it clear that District officials must
cooperate with any court order directing that an individual
in District custody suspected of an immigration violation be
detained or transferred to federal custody. H.R. 2056 would
also eliminate rules governing information sharing between
the District and federal law enforcement on immigration
matters. In sum, the bill would scrap rules and practices
that are clear and familiar and replace them with nothing.
This will only cause confusion and uncertainty both for law
enforcement and those suspected of an immigration violation.
The Council is already considering a proposal from Mayor
Muriel Bowser to reconsider the District's laws and policies
in this area. We respectfully request that you allow us to do
that work.
Thank you for your consideration and your attention to
these important matters. We look forward to working with you
on our shared goals to advance the safety, security, and
prosperity of the District.
Sincerely,
Phil Mendelson,
Chairman, At-Large.
Kenyan R. McDuffie,
Chair Pro-Tempore, At-Large.
Anita Bonds,
Councilmember, At-Large.
Christina Henderson,
Councilmember, At-Large.
Robert C. White,
Councilmember, At-Large.
Brianne K. Nadeau,
Councilmember, Ward 1.
Brooke Pinto,
Councilmember, Ward 2.
Matthew Frumin,
Councilmember, Ward 3.
Janeese Lewis George,
Councilmember, Ward 4.
Zachary Parker,
Councilmember, Ward 5.
Charles Allen,
Councilmember, Ward 6.
Wendell Felder,
Councilmember, Ward 7.
____

Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the
Attorney General,
Washington, DC, June 9, 2025.
Hon. Mike Johnson,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
House Minority Leader, House of Representatives
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: I write
in opposition to three pieces of legislation before you
today, H.R. 2096, H.R. 884, and H.R. 2056. These bills seek
to repeal, explicitly or in effect, three local D.C. laws
pertaining to three inherently local issues, namely the
administration of local elections, the allocation of finite
local law enforcement resources, and the processes for
disciplining local police officers if they engage in
misconduct. The D.C. Council--whose members are elected by
and are directly accountable to District residents--passed
those laws after extensive debate and consideration. It would
be undemocratic and contrary to the principles of local
autonomy on which this country was founded for Members of
Congress, in whose election District residents have no say,
to vote to upend these purely local laws.
District residents should have the same right as all other
Americans to govern our local affairs. Just like your
constituents in Louisiana and New York, and indeed the
constituents in all of your colleagues' home states across
the country, the more than 700,000 residents who call the
District home know and care deeply about the local issues
that uniquely impact our lives. Our democratically elected
local officials work closely with policy experts, local law
enforcement, and other community stakeholders to pass laws
that are in the best interests of all Washingtonians.
Substituting the will of District voters and the duly elected
D.C. Council for that of federal politicians is, simply put,
un-democratic. Even if members of Congress might vote
differently on similar local issues for their own
jurisdictions, the residents of D.C. deserve to have our
local laws respected without interference from the federal
government.
I urge you and your colleagues to vote against advancing
these proposals.
Sincerely,
Brian L. Schwalb,
Attorney General for the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, Republicans regularly introduce
legislation to repeal local D.C. laws. What is different about this
bill is it also overrides longstanding wishes of the D.C. police
department.
For at least a quarter century, the D.C. police department has
requested increased authority to discipline officers for misconduct.
The Council gave the department this authority after the murder of
George Floyd. This bill would take away this authority.
I will discuss the justification and timing of this bill, though it
is always wrong and never the right time for Congress to legislate on
local D.C. matters. This bill says it is necessary to combat rising
violent crime in D.C. and to improve the retention and recruitment of
D.C. police officers. This bill has its facts wrong.
Last year, violent crime in D.C. reached a more than 30-year low.
This year, violent crime in D.C. is down 22 percent compared to the
same period last year. Police departments throughout the country, in
both red and blue States, are struggling to retain and recruit
officers, and they have been for many years.
The timing of the introduction and consideration of this bill is
stunning. It was introduced the same day Congress cut the local D.C.
budget by more than $1 billion. This fiscal sabotage did not save the
Federal Government any money, since the local D.C. budget consists
entirely of locally raised revenue. The Senate immediately passed the
District of Columbia Local Funds Act

[[Page H2593]]

to reverse this cut. Although President Trump and the National
Fraternal Order of Police called for the House to immediately pass the
District of Columbia Local Funds Act, the District of Columbia Local
Funds Act has been sitting in this House for 3 months.
Madam Speaker, I close by discussing democracy, or lack thereof, in
D.C. The Revolutionary War was fought to give consent to the governed
and to end taxation without representation. Yet, D.C. residents cannot
consent to any action taken by Congress, whether on local or Federal
matters, and they pay full Federal taxes while being denied voting
representation in Congress.
If Republicans cared about D.C. residents or democracy, they would
take up H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act. H.R. 51 would
admit the residential and commercial areas of D.C. as a State, giving
D.C. residents voting representation in Congress and full local self-
government.
Congress has the authority to admit the new State. The Admissions
Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to admit new
States. All 37 new States were admitted by an act of Congress. The
District Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to
reduce the size of the Federal district, which it has previously done.
Madam Speaker, I urge the House to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2096 and to
pass the D.C. statehood bill and the District of Columbia Local Funds
Act.
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).
Ms. STANSBURY. Madam Speaker, today I rise to oppose this attack on
our Nation's Capital.
I remind everyone that 1 week ago today, Donald Trump was in the most
epic breakup of probably a generation. He and Elon Musk were fighting
it out on Twitter and Truth Social, going back and forth. What was
Donald Trump's response? Was it an in-earnest response to the actual
attacks that were coming toward him as his actual agenda was sinking
here in the House, as Elon Musk was taking to Twitter for days trying
to take down his signature bill, his big abomination of a bill that
would strip healthcare away from millions of Americans, Medicaid and
Medicare, that would take food out of the mouths of millions of
American children, that would cut programs that people across this
country use to advance their education and that would blow a hole
through the United States' deficit on a scale we have never seen
before?
Just a week ago, Elon Musk was tweeting ``KILL the BILL,'' and in the
days after was posting incriminating tweets not only about the
President, but about the GOP and their ability to win and hold this
House.
What was the President's response? Did he respond to these
allegations? Did he rush to stop Republicans from trying to cover their
tracks who had been lying for weeks about the nature of this bill and
how it would gut our healthcare to millions of Americans, and how it
would cause our Nation to spend generations of debt on the backs of the
American people so that billionaires could get another small tax break?
No. What he did was deploy ICE to make mass arrests and terrorize
families in Los Angeles.
When people went to go exercise their First Amendment rights, he
deployed the National Guard and then the United States Marines against
the American people.
This is not only a distraction, this is a direct abuse of power
because the reality of what was actually going on in this Chamber a
week ago is that these people were trying to take away Americans'
healthcare and food assistance, and Donald Trump was getting heat from
his ex-boyfriend. Then what did he do? He deployed the United States
military against Americans.
What is the GOP doing this week on this House floor? They are
attacking the sovereignty and home rule of the people of the city of
Washington, D.C.

I think it should not take anyone by surprise as Donald Trump is
preparing to have the largest military parade in generations on his
birthday here in this city that the three bills they are trying to pass
on this House floor are directly attacking the city that is the capital
of this great Nation, that is attacking policing and attacking home
rule of this city. That is what these bills are all about.
They are a distraction. They are about taking over the self-
governance of the city of Washington, D.C., and they are about taking
away the power of the people.
I think it is important to understand that as the Washington, D.C.,
Delegate, Ms. Norton, just said, this is also about stripping the
people of D.C. of vital reforms that came in the wake of George Floyd's
death.
What is this all really about? What is this in service of? Is this
really about making the Capital City more safe? No, it is not. In fact,
it is about making it less safe for the people of Washington, D.C., who
live here, who work here every day of their lives and, frankly, who
take care of the rest of us who come here to work on behalf of our
people.
This is not about public safety. This is about taking away vital
reforms. It is about taking away home rule of Washington, D.C., and it
is about taking away, once again, the rights of the people of this
city.
I am proud to stand with the people of D.C. in opposing all three of
these bills and to get us refocused on the real issues of this country
and what is actually happening in this Chamber right now, which is that
all of these guys sitting around here today are trying to take away
your healthcare.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.

{time} 1445

Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, before I reserve, I want to make sure that
my colleagues across the aisle know what bill we are actually debating
on the floor, that the bill that pertains to law enforcement in
Washington, D.C. It has nothing to do with their quest to continue to
defend the rioters and illegals in California.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from
Deirdre Schifeling, Anthony Romero, and Deborah Archer of the American
Civil Liberties Union in opposition to H.R. 2096.

June 10, 2025.
Re Vote ``No'' on H.R. 2096 Protecting Our Nation's Capital
Emergency Act Which Would Allow Dangerous Officers Who
Have Been Terminated for Criminal Conduct or Police
Misconduct to Remain Employed as D.C. Metropolitan Police
Officers Endangering Public Safety, Evading
Accountability, and Eroding Public Trust.

Dear Representative: The American Civil Liberties Union
strongly urges you to oppose H.R. 2096 which would make it
easier for police officers accused of criminal conduct or
police misconduct to be reinstated as D.C. Metropolitan
Police Department officers. H.R. 2096 removes key polic
misconduct oversight provisions from The Comprehensive
Policing and Justice Amendment Act of 2022 which was signed
into law.
H.R. 2096 repeals key portions of current local law that
address the problems highlighted in recent D.C. Auditor's
report of officers being rehired despite being previously
terminated for police misconduct or criminal conduct.
Specifically:
1. H.R. 2096 would reinstate the ineffective, slow, and
costly arbitration process for handling cases where officers
are accused of crimes or police misconduct and face
termination of employment.
2. H.R. 2096 would place a 90-day limit on the police
department to start a disciplinary response, but this bill
does not place a time limit to take a case to arbitration.
From 2015-2021 officers who were fired and/or their
representatives allowed years to pass before bringing a case
to arbitration resulting in large awards for backpay and high
administrative costs for the District.
3. H.R. 2096 would remove the transparency requirement for
the police department to publish on a public website a
schedule of adverse action hearings in which the proposed
discipline for an officer is termination, including the date,
time, and location of the hearing, the name and badge number
of the officer, and a summary of the alleged misconduct or
charges.
4. H.R. 2096 also removes the D.C. Metropolitan Police
Chief's ability to increase proposed penalties for officers.
H.R. 2096 Will Reinstitute Closed-Door Arbitration Hearings
for Officers Accused of Criminal Conduct and Police
Misconduct, A System Which Puts Dangerous Officers Back in
the Metropolitan Police Department and Costs Taxpayers
Millions.
H.R. 2096 will institute a police officer negotiated, non-
public arbitration for cases where an officer has been or
will be fired for misconduct. This system makes it nearly
impossible to fire officers from the D.C. Metropolitan Police
who have engaged in criminal

[[Page H2594]]

conduct and conduct that violates civil liberties due to the
convoluted and lopsided nature of the arbitration. According
to former Metropolitan Police Department Chief Peter Newsham,
the arbitration system puts ``very bad police officers back
into our department.'' In 2022, the Office of the District of
Columbia Auditor issued a report studying the cases of
officers fired and then reinstated by the D.C. Metropolitan
Police from 2015 to 2021. Thirty-seven D.C. Metropolitan
police officers were fired for allegations criminal conduct,
civil rights violations, and officer conduct violations.
These dangerous officers were reinstated, on average, 8 years
later, and 36 of those officers were paid $14.3 million in
taxpayer dollars.
Of the 37 police officers who were terminated and then
reinstated by the closed-door arbitration system that H.R.
2096 would reinstitute, 17 (46 percent) were terminated for
police misconduct defined as `threat to safety' which meant
these officers engaged in conduct that included a risk of
harm to persons through action or inaction, such as physical
and sexual violence, mishandling firearms, or compromising
evidence related to an arrest. The other 20 officers (54
percent) were terminated for reasons such as
misrepresentation of injuries, time theft, fraud, and other
misconduct that violated the Metropolitan Police rules and
code of conduct (see below for examples from the 2022 audit
report).
H.R. 2096 Will Protect Dangerous Police Officers from Being
Fired and These Officers Will Continue Their Pattern and
Practice of Civil Liberties Violations.
Officers who were fired from the D.C. Metropolitan Police
Department for criminal conduct or police misconduct continue
their pattern of dangerous behavior and have police
misconduct complaints even after being reinstated. As of
September 2022, 15 of the 37 officers that were fired and
reinstated through the arbitration process which H.R. 2096
will reinstate are still working at the D.C. Metropolitan
Police Department. Six of the 15 officers (40 percent) had
another official misconduct complaint filed by the
Metropolitan Police Department after they were reinstated.
H.R. 2096's arbitration system encourages officers to engage
in civil rights violations against the public because
dangerous officers know they will simply be reinstated
through the arbitration process and cannot be fired.
This bill fails to learn any of the lessons of the murder
of George Floyd by police officers: officers with a pattern
of misconduct must be removed from employment, not simply
cycled back into positions of authority and control.
H.R. 2096 Will Reinstate the 8 Year Arbitration Process
That Pays Dangerous Police Officers $374,000 on Average in
Backpay and Costs the District $895,000 Annually in Personnel
Resources. H.R. 2096 does not create a timelier process for
the resolution of police misconduct cases. H.R. 2096 will
reinstate a termination process that is not public and
overseen by arbitrators. This process is heavily skewed to
protect dangerous police officers by allowing them to
capitalize on a drawn-out arbitration process that does not
set any time limits for officers to bring their case to
arbitration.
According to a 2022 Report issued by the Office of the D.C.
Auditor, from 2015 to 2021, the police officer termination
and reinstatement process lasted an average of 8 years, the
average amount of backpay the District paid to these officers
was $374,000, and the District personnel and resources spent
on these drawn-out arbitration processes totaled an estimated
$895,000 each year for a period of five years.
H.R. 2096 sets a 90-day limit on the police department to
commence corrective or adverse action against a police
officer or civilian employee but does not place any time
limits on the fired officers, or their representatives, to
bring a case to arbitration in a timely fashion. Fired
officers and their representatives have allowed years to pass
before bringing a case for arbitration creating a process
that takes, on average, 8 years before a misconduct case is
resolved resulting in costly backpay payouts for the District
of Columbia. Additionally, the 90-day time limit in this
legislation allows individuals engaged in criminal conduct to
avoid any accountability for misconduct through a technical
hurdle and one-sided timeline requirement.
The officer discipline process H.R. 2096 would reinstate
has proven to be excessively slow, a waste of taxpayer money,
and puts officers unfit to serve back in the Metropolitan
Police Department.
H.R 2096 Creates a Wall of Secrecy and Undermines Public
Transparency and Accountability.
This legislation will remove the current requirement for
the Metropolitan Police Department to publish on a public
website a schedule of adverse action hearings in which the
proposed discipline for an officer is termination, including
the date, time, and location of the hearing, the name and
badge number of the officer, and a summary of the alleged
misconduct or charges.
Public access to police misconduct information is a key
component of accountability and reduces the likelihood that
an individual engaging in criminal behavior or police
misconduct can simply resign and join another law enforcement
agency. A recent study published in The Yale Law Journal
found 800 officers in Florida who were fired, some even for
serious misconduct, and were rehired at another police
department. Police misconduct records are often inaccessible
to the individuals and communities most affected by excessive
use of force and police misconduct. H.R. 2096 would remove a
critical tool that allows for greater transparency and
accountability.
For these reasons, the ACLU strongly urges you to vote
``NO'' on H.R. 2096. If you have any questions, please
contact Nina Patel, Senior Policy Counsel, Justice Division.
Sincerely,

Cynthia W. Rosebery,

Director, Justice Division,
ACLU National.

Nina Patel,

Senior Policy Counsel,
ACLU National.

Monica Hopkins,

Executive Director,
ACLU District of Columbia.

Melissa Wasser,

Senior Policy Counsel,
ACLU District of Columbia.

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am
prepared to close. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, in closing, I note that H.R. 2096 is endorsed by the
National Fraternal Order of Police. I strongly encourage each of my
House colleagues to support this bill, which will help strengthen law
and order in our Nation's Capital City, which is the responsibility of
Congress and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Again, I encourage passage of H.R. 2096, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 489, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COMER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________