Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source