[House Report 119-138]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 119-138
======================================================================
PROTECTING OUR NATION'S CAPITAL EMERGENCY ACT
_______
June 4, 2025.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Comer, from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2096]
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom
was referred 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, having considered the
same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Summary and Purpose of Legislation............................... 2
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 2
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 3
Legislative History.............................................. 3
Committee Consideration.......................................... 4
Roll Call Votes.................................................. 4
Explanation of Amendments........................................ 6
List of Related Committee Hearings............................... 6
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the
Committee...................................................... 6
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 6
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch..................... 6
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 7
Federal Advisory Committee Act Statement......................... 7
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement........................... 7
Earmark Identification........................................... 7
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 7
New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost
Estimate....................................................... 7
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 7
Minority Views................................................... 10
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Our Nation's Capital
Emergency Act''.
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.
Summary and Purpose of Legislation
H.R. 2096 amends the D.C. Government Comprehensive Merit
Personnel Act of 1978 to repeal two amendments recently made by
the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of
2022 (D.C. Law 24-345), including the ability of the Metro
Police Department (MPD) officer union to bargain on matters of
officer discipline, removal of a strict timeline under which
such discipline must be carried out for alleged wrongdoing, and
the creation of a public website announcing the schedule of
adverse action hearings for officers.
Background and Need for Legislation
H.R. 2096 would overturn certain provisions in the
Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of
2022, which was passed by the D.C. Council on January 4, 2023.
In the 118th Congress, in response to the Comprehensive
Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, the Congress
voted in a bipartisan fashion to pass H.J. Res. 42, a
resolution of disapproval of the Comprehensive Policing and
Justice Reform Amendment Act. H.J. Res. 42 was then vetoed by
President Biden. Additionally, in the 118th Congress, a bill
identical to H.R. 2096 was passed out of the Committee on
Oversight and Accountability by a vote of 22-19.
Local D.C. residents are aware of this and have held
community meetings to discuss crime, particularly
carjackings.\1\ Crime is also occurring right outside of
Federal government buildings.\2\ On March 21, 2025, a D.C.
violence interrupter (a group of individuals serving as
alternatives to traditional police charged with curbing crime
in the District) was himself arrested for first degree murder
in a D.C. shooting--an occurrence that calls into serious
question the viability of local government alternatives to
traditional policing.\3\ It is clear that the District of
Columbia needs more police officers on the streets. D.C.'s
businesses recognize the seriousness of the rising crime and
have responded by either closing their doors or relocating to
safer regions. In 2024, the District of Columbia saw the
highest number of restaurant closings in its history.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Sierra Fox, Community demands Accountability for juvenile crimes
at carjacking panel in Southeast, FOX 5 (Jan. 31, 2024), https://
www.fox5dc.com/news/community-demands-Accountability-for-juvenile-
crimes-at-carjacking-panel-in-southeast.
\2\MPD Investigating Man's Overnight Crime Spree, Leaving 1 Dead
and 1 with Critical Injuries, DC.gov (Jan. 30, 2024), https://
mpdc.dc.gov/release/mpd-investigating-man%E2%80%99s-overnight-crime-
spree-leaving-1-dead-and-1-critical-injuries.
\3\DC violence interrupter arrested for deadly shooting,
NBCWashington (Mar. 25, 2025), https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/
local/dc-violence-interrupter-arrested-for-deadly-shooting/3874237/.
\4\Jeff Clabaugh, Half of DC restaurants say business is down, many
may close, survey finds, WTOPnews (Mar. 19, 2025), https://wtop.com/
business-finance/2025/03/half-of-dc-restaurants-say-business-is-down-
many-may-close/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, the D.C. Council has chosen to attack their own
police force, singling out the Metropolitan Police Department
(MPD) as the only major police union with restrictions on it
its ability to bargain on disciplinary matters. H.R. 2096 would
restore D.C. police officers' collective bargaining rights by
restoring their ability to negotiate matters pertaining to
officer discipline through the collective bargaining process.
Next, it would restore the requirement for claims against MPD
members or civilian employees of MPD be timely, as prolonged
investigations can represent its own form of additional
punishment to officers. Finally, it would remove the
requirement for D.C. to publicly disclose the time and location
of officers' adverse actions hearings.
D.C. cannot afford to lose any more officers while
combatting rising crime and keeping D.C. residents safe. It is
the Committee's position that these policies must be reinstated
in D.C. Code in order to preserve the MPD's ability to recruit
and retain officers.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title
The short title is the ``Protecting Our Nation's Capital
Emergency Act of 2025''.
Section 2. Restoration of equitable and fair treatment of law
enforcement personnel of District of Columbia
Subsection (a) restores the D.C. law enforcement officers'
right to collectively bargain on matters pertaining to
discipline. Subsection (b) restores the requirement for timely
disciplinary actions regarding claims against members or
civilian employees of MPD. The subsection also removes the
requirement for a public website to provide the time and place
for adverse action hearings against officers.
Legislative History
H.R. 2096, the Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency
Act of 2025, was introduced on March 14, 2025, by
Representative Andrew Garbarino (R-NY). The following
Representatives are cosponsors of the bill: Pete Stauber (R-
MN), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), and John Rutherford (R-FL). The bill
was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform. The Committee considered H.R. 2096 at a business
meeting on May 21, 2025, and ordered the bill as amended
favorably reported by a recorded vote.
Committee Consideration
On May 21, the Committee met in open session and ordered
the bill, H.R. 2096, favorably reported with an amendment in
the nature of a substitute, by a roll call vote of 23-18, a
quorum being present.
Roll Call Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the following roll call vote
occurred during the Committee's consideration of H.R. 2096:
The roll call vote was on favorably reporting H.R. 2096.
The bill was agreed to in a recorded vote of 23-18.
Explanation of Amendments
During Committee consideration of the bill, Representative
James Comer (R-KY), Chairman of the Committee, offered an
amendment in the nature of a substitute that made a certain
technical change to the bill. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute passed by voice vote.
List of Related Committee Hearings
In accordance with House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(6), (1) The
following hearing was used to develop or consider H.R. 2096:
On March 11, 2025, the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement held
a legislative hearing titled ``Enhancing Federal, State, and
Local Coordination in the Fight Against Criminal Illegal
Aliens'' with Joseph Humire, Executive Director, The Center for
a Secure Free Society; the Honorable Bob Gaultieri, Sheriff,
Pinellas County, Florida; and Kerry E. Doyle, Former Principal
Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
(2) The following related hearing was held:
On March 11, 2025, the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement held
a legislative hearing titled ``Enhancing Federal, State, and
Local Coordination in the Fight Against Criminal Illegal
Aliens'' with Joseph Humire, Executive Director, The Center for
a Secure Free Society; the Honorable Bob Gaultieri, Sheriff,
Pinellas County, Florida; and Kerry E. Doyle, Former Principal
Legal Advisor, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the Background and Need for
Legislation section above.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee's performance
goals or objectives of this bill are to restore the ability of
the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) to negotiate matters
pertaining to the discipline of law enforcement officers of the
District of Columbia, to restore the statute of limitations for
resolving disciplinary cases against members or civilian
employees of the MPD, and for other purposes.
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch
Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a
description of the application of this bill to the legislative
branch where the bill relates to the terms and conditions of
employment or access to public services and accommodations.
This bill does not relate to employment or access to public
services and accommodations in the legislative branch.
Duplication of Federal Programs
In accordance with clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII no provision
of this bill establishes or reauthorizes a program of the
Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal
program, a program that was included in any report from the
Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to
section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program related to a
program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance.
Federal Advisory Committee Act Statement
Pursuant to section 5(b) of Public Law 92-463 (5 U.S.C.
1004(b)), the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Committee
finds that this Committee Print does not direct the
establishment of an advisory committee.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement
Pursuant to section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 the Committee has included a letter received from the
Congressional Budget Office below.
Earmark Identification
This bill does not include any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
clause 9 of rule XXI of the House of Representatives.
Committee Cost Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee includes below a cost
estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of House rule XIII, the
Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets and
existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
SECTION 1-617.08 OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICIAL CODE
Sec. 1-617.08. Management rights; matters subject to collective
bargaining
(a) The respective personnel authorities (management) shall
retain the sole right, in accordance with applicable laws and
rules and regulations:
(1) To direct employees of the agencies;
(2) To hire, promote, transfer, assign, and retain
employees in positions within the agency and to
suspend, demote, discharge, or take other disciplinary
action against employees for cause;
(3) To relieve employees of duties because of lack of
work or other legitimate reasons;
(4) To maintain the efficiency of the District
government operations entrusted to them;
(5) To determine:
(A) The mission of the agency, its budget,
its organization, the number of employees, and
to establish the tour of duty;
(B) The number, types, and grades of
positions of employees assigned to an agency's
organizational unit, work project, or tour of
duty;
(C) The technology of performing the agency's
work; and
(D) The agency's internal security practices;
and
(6) To take whatever actions may be necessary to
carry out the mission of the District government in
emergency situations.
(a-1) An act, exercise, or agreement of the respective
personnel authorities (management) shall not be interpreted in
any manner as a waiver of the sole management rights contained
in subsection (a) of this section.
(b) All matters shall be deemed negotiable except those that
are proscribed by this subchapter. Negotiations concerning
compensation are authorized to the extent provided in 1-617.16.
[(c)(1) All matters pertaining to the discipline of sworn law
enforcement personnel shall be retained by management and not
be negotiable through bargaining, including substantive or
impacts-and-effects bargaining.
[(2) This subsection shall apply to any collective bargaining
agreements entered into with the Fraternal Order of Police/
Metropolitan Police Department Labor Committee after September
30, 2020, and to any collective bargaining agreements
automatically renewed on or after September 30, 2020.]
----------
SUBTITLE M OF TITLE I OF THE COMPREHENSIVE POLICING AND JUSTICE REFORM
AMENDMENT ACT OF 2022
[Subtitle M--OFFICER DISCIPLINE REFORMS
[Sec. 117. Section 502 of the Omnibus Public Safety Agency
Reform Amendment Act of 2004, effective September 30, 2004
(D.C. Law 15-194; D.C. Official Code Sec. 5-1031), is amended
as follows:
[(a) Subsection (a-1) is repealed.
[(b) Subsection (b) is amended to read as follows:
[``(b) If the act or occurrence allegedly constituting cause
is the subject of a criminal investigation by the Metropolitan
Police Department or any law enforcement or prosecuting agency
with jurisdiction within the United States, the Office of the
United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, or the
Office of the Attorney General, or is the subject of an
investigation by the Office of the Inspector General or the
Office of the District of Columbia Auditor, the 90-day period
for commencing a corrective or adverse action under subsection
(a) of this section shall be tolled until the conclusion of the
investigation.''.
[(c) A new subsection (c) is added to read as follows:
[``(c)(1) MPD shall publish, on a publicly accessible
website, a schedule of adverse action hearings for cases in
which the proposed discipline is termination.
[``(2) The schedule shall include:
[``(A) The date, time, and location of the hearing;
[``(B) The name and badge number of the subject
officer; and
[``(C) A summary of the alleged misconduct or charges
against the subject officer.''.
[Sec. 118. Section 6-A1001.5 of Chapter 10 of Title 6 of the
District of Columbia Municipal Regulations is amended by
striking the phrase ``reduce the penalty'' and inserting the
phrase ``reduce or increase the penalty'' in its place.]
* * * * * * *
MINORITY VIEWS
Committee Democrats strongly oppose H.R. 2096, which would
repeal provisions of a law duly enacted by the District of
Columbia (D.C.), because we strongly support local D.C. self-
government.
DENIAL OF DEMOCRACY IN D.C.
The principles of no taxation without representation and
consent of the governed helped launch the American Revolution
and are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. Yet, D.C.
residents, who pay all federal taxes, have no voting
representation in Congress, and Congress has plenary authority
over D.C.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Majority claims Congress has a constitutional duty to
legislate on local D.C. matters. That is false, and Republicans
choose to legislate on local D.C. matters when they think they
can score political points.
Despite giving Congress plenary authority over D.C., the
Framers expected Congress to establish a local government for
D.C.\2\ Indeed, Congress has established various forms of local
government for D.C. since 1802.\3\ The Supreme Court has held
that ``there is no constitutional barrier to the delegation by
Congress to the District of Columbia of full legislative
power.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\``[A] municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from
their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them.'' Library of
Congress, Federalist Nos. 41-50 (online at https://guides.loc.gov/
federalist-papers/text-41-50).
\3\Congressional Research Service, Governing the District of
Columbia: Overview and Timeline (Jan. 29, 2024) (online at
www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12577).
\4\District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., Inc., 346 U.S.
100, 109 (1953).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1973, Congress passed the D.C. Home Rule Act, which
established an elected chief executive (the D.C. Mayor) and an
elected legislature (the D.C. Council) for D.C.\5\ The purpose
of the D.C. Home Rule Act is to, among other things, ``grant to
the inhabitants of the District of Columbia powers of local
self-government'' and ``relieve Congress of the burden of
legislating upon essentially local District matters.''\6\ H.R.
2096 contravenes the purpose of the D.C. Home Rule Act. Both
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and the D.C. Council oppose H.R.
2096.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Pub. L. No. 93-198 (1973).
\6\Id.
\7\Letter from District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser to Rep.
James Comer, Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, and Rep. Gerald Connolly, Ranking Member, House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform (May 21, 2025); Letter from Council of
the District of Columbia to Rep. James Comer, Chairman, House Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform, and Rep. Gerald Connolly, Ranking
Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (May 20,
2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY
The merits of H.R. 2096 are beside the point, because we
support D.C. home rule, but we will address them nonetheless.
Police officers are entrusted with extraordinary authority to
protect public safety. The vast majority of police officers
exercise that authority honorably and bravely. However, there
must be accountability and transparency for instances in which
police officers violate their oath of office.
Following the devastating murder of George Floyd, D.C.
enacted the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment
Act of 2022 (CPJRAA), which, in pertinent part, made it easier
for the police department to discipline police officers for
violating their oath of office. H.R. 2096 would repeal police
officer discipline provisions in the CPJRAA.
H.R. 2096, as introduced, includes a purpose section.
According to the introduced version of H.R. 2096, the purpose
of the bill 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 H.R. 2096, as ordered to be reported, does not
include that purpose section, since it is inaccurate.
Violent crime is not rising in D.C. In 2025, violent crime
in D.C. is down 22%, compared to the same period in 2024.\8\ In
2024, violent crime in D.C. was the lowest in over 30 years.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Metropolitan Police Department, District Crime Data at a Glance
(online at www.mpdc.dc.gov/dailycrime) (accessed May 28, 2025).
\9\Office of the United States Attorney for the District of
Columbia, Violent Crime in D.C. Hits 30 Year Low (Jan. 3, 2025) (online
at www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/violent-crime-dc-hits-30-year-
low#::text=WASHINGTON%20-%20Total%20violent%20crime%20for,Graves.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The D.C. police department is not alone in having
difficulty recruiting and retaining police officers. Police
departments across the country are having difficulty with
recruitment and retention, and this difficulty predates the
police accountability and transparency legislation enacted
across the country in the aftermath of the murder of George
Floyd.\10\ A survey conducted in 2019 found that ``the
challenge of recruiting law enforcement is widespread and
affects agencies of all types, sizes, and locations across the
United States.''\11\ That survey also 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.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\International Association of Chiefs of Police, The State of
Recruitment & Retention: A Continuing Crisis for Policing
(www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2024-11/
IACP_Recruitment_Report_Survey.pdf) (accessed May 28, 2025).
\11\International Association of Chiefs of Police, The State of
Recruitment: A Crisis for Law Enforcement (online at www.theiacp.org/
sites/default/files/239416_IACP_RecruitmentBR_HR_0.pdf) (accessed May
28, 2025).
\12\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The actual purpose of H.R. 2096 is to make it harder for
the police department to discipline police officers who violate
their oath of office. Before the CPJRAA, the police department
had been forced to rehire a significant number of police
officers it had fired for crimes and official misconduct.\13\
D.C. also had to provide millions of dollars in back pay to
police officers it was forced to rehire, and D.C. paid millions
of dollars to resolve claims alleging police officer
misconduct.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\Office of the District of Columbia Auditor, 36 Fired MPD
Officers Reinstated; Receive $14 Million in Back Pay (Oct. 6, 2022)
(online at www.dcauditor.org/report/mpd-personnel-
settlement-report/).
\14\Office of the District of Columbia Auditor, 36 Fired MPD
Officers Reinstated; Receive $14 Million in Back Pay (Oct. 6, 2022)
(online at www.dcauditor.org/report/mpd-personnel-
settlement-report/); The Hidden Billion-Dollar Cost of Repeated Police
Misconduct, Washington Post (May 9, 2022) (online at
www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2022/police-
misconduct-repeated-settlements/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2096 would repeal four police officer discipline
provisions in the CPJRAA.
First, H.R. 2096 would repeal a provision that removed
police officer discipline from collective bargaining. Several
states, including states represented by Republican Members of
the Committee, prohibit collective bargaining by police
officers.\15\ The CPJRAA maintained the right of police
officers to collectively bargain, except over discipline, and
maintains the civil service protections and due process rights
of police officers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Ballotpedia, Public-Sector Union Policy in the United States,
2018-2023 (online at www.ballotpedia.org/Public-
sector_union_policy_in_the_United_States,_2018-2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collective bargaining by police officers has been widely
criticized for protecting police officers from discipline for
crimes and official misconduct. A Republican staff report for
the Joint Economic Committee said that ``[c]ollective
bargaining plays a significant role in shielding police
officers from the consequences of their misconduct.''\16\ A law
review article conducted an empirical examination of police
union contracts, concluding, ``This [a]rticle's findings are
consistent with the hypothesis that police union contracts
sometimes establish problematic internal disciplinary
procedures that serve as barriers to accountability.''\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Joint Economic Committee, Accountability for Bad Apples: Police
Reforms to Restore Faith in Institutions (Mar. 2021) (online at
www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/e54f6c37-017c-49c2-ad0b-
de12bcc48978/3-21-police-reform.pdf).
\17\Stephen Rushin, Police Union Contracts, 66 Duke L.J. 1191, 1239
(2017) (online at https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=3890&context=dlj).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, H.R. 2096 would reinstate a 90-day statute of
limitations on the police department to commence discipline.
The CPJRAA repealed that provision because 90 days was not
enough time in some cases to commence discipline. Adjudicators
had overturned discipline in some cases because the police
department had exceeded 90 days to commence discipline, and
there is no statute of limitations for commencing discipline
against most other D.C. government employees.\18\ The home
state of Rep. Andrew Garbarino, the sponsor of H.R. 2096, has
an 18-month statute of limitations to commence discipline
against police officers.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\Council of the District of Columbia Committee on the Judiciary
and Public Safety, Report on Bill 24-0320, the Comprehensive Policing
and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 (Nov. 30, 2022) (online at
https://lims.dccouncil.gov/downloads/LIMS/47448/Committee_Report/B24-
0320-Committee_Report1.pdf).
\19\N.Y. Civil Service Law Sec. 75(4) (online at www.nysenate.gov/
legislation/laws/CVS/75).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 CPJRAA, the police chief could only impose or reduce
the proposed discipline or order a new trial. The CPJRAA
increased the discipline power of the police chief and reduced
the discipline power of the police trial board, which may be
more inclined to protect their fellow police officers from
discipline.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\D.C. Police Tried to Fire 24 Current Officers For `Criminal
Offenses.' A Powerful Panel Blocked Nearly Every One, Documents Show,
DCist (Dec. 18, 2021) (online at www.dcist.com/story/21/12/18/dc-
police-panel-blocked-mpd-firings/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, H.R. 2096 would repeal a provision that required
the police department to publish on a public website a schedule
of police officer discipline hearings, which are open to the
public.
CONCLUSION
We strongly oppose H.R. 2096 and any other effort to
undermine the will of D.C. residents and their locally elected
representatives. Instead of interfering in local D.C. matters,
Congress should grant D.C.'s statehood petition.
Stephen F. Lynch,
Acting Ranking Member.