Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
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.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source