[House Report 119-341]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 119-341
======================================================================
TO REPEAL THE SECOND CHANCE AMENDMENT ACT OF 2022 AND THE INCARCERATION
REDUCTION AMENDMENT ACT OF 2016
_______
October 14, 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. 5242]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 5242) to repeal the Second Chance
Amendment Act of 2022 and the Incarceration Reduction Amendment
Act of 2016, 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...................................... 6
Legislative History.............................................. 7
Committee Consideration.......................................... 7
Roll Call Votes.................................................. 7
Explanation of Amendments........................................ 11
List of Related Committee Hearings............................... 11
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the
Committee...................................................... 11
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 11
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch..................... 11
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 12
Federal Advisory Committee Act Statement......................... 12
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement........................... 12
Earmark Identification........................................... 12
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 12
New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost
Estimate....................................................... 12
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 16
Minority Views................................................... 37
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. REPEAL OF SECOND CHANCE AMENDMENT ACT OF 2022 AND
INCARCERATION REDUCTION AMENDMENT ACT OF 2016.
(a) Second Chance Amendment Act of 2022.--The Second Chance Amendment
Act of 2022 (D.C. Law 24-284) is hereby repealed, and any provision of
law amended or repealed by such Act is restored or revived as if such
Act had not been enacted into law.
(b) Incarceration Reduction Act of 2016.-- The Incarceration
Reduction Amendment Act of 2016 (title III of the Comprehensive Youth
Justice Amendment Act of 2016; D.C. Law 21-238) is hereby repealed, and
any provision of law amended or repealed by such Act is restored or
revived as if such Act had not been enacted into law.
SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM.
Title IX of the Fiscal Year 1997 Budget Support Act of 1996 (sec. 50-
2209.01 et seq., D.C. Official Code) is hereby repealed.
SEC. 3. ELIMINATING RESTRICTIONS ON RIGHT TURNS AT RED TRAFFIC SIGNALS.
Section 9e of the District of Columbia Traffic Act, 1925, approved
March 3, 1925 (sec. 50- 2201.04e, D.C. Official Code) is repealed.
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall apply with
respect to criminal conduct that occurred after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Summary and Purpose of Legislation
H.R. 5242 repeals the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act
of 2016 (IRAA; title III of the Comprehensive Youth Justice
Amendment Act of 2016, D.C. Law 21-238), passed by the D.C.
Council in 2016. The Incarceration Reduction Act allows
individuals convicted of certain serious crimes committed
before their 18th birthday to petition the court for a sentence
reduction after serving at least 15 years. In repealing the
IRAA, the D.C. Code will reflect the codified language
predating the passage of the Act and all subsequent amendments.
This bill also repeals the Second Chance Amendment Act (SCAA)
of 2022 (D.C. Law 24-284) which expanded D.C.'s expungement and
sealing process to allow more individuals to petition the
District for expungement or sealing of prior conviction records
as well as the automatic expungement or sealing for certain
other convictions, including marijuana possession. The bill
also repeals provisions of D.C. Code authorizing the District's
use of automated traffic enforcement systems and the
requirement for the District to prohibit right turn on red
signage on D.C. streets.
Background and Need for Legislation
The District of Columbia has seen a staggering juvenile
crime rate since the pandemic. In 2023, over 500 arrests of
minors were made on robbery charges alone, rising to levels not
seen since the 1990s.\1\ In 2023, most carjackers were under
the age of 17.\2\ A poll given by Fox 5 DC asked, ``Should
juveniles who commit violent crimes face tougher
punishments?''\3\ 98% of respondents said yes.\4\ There is an
overwhelming desire from the public to find a solution to this
crime epidemic, yet the D.C. Council continues to push lenient
legislation, and AG Schwalb continues to fail to hold juveniles
accountable. In response to an outbreak of juvenile arrests
over the Fourth of July weekend in 2025,\5\ Mayor Bowser signed
emergency legislation, passed by the D.C. Council, that
implemented and expanded the pre-existing summer curfew across
the District.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Id.
\2\The Top 3, FOX 5 DC, at 0:44 (Apr. 26, 2023) [hereinafter ``The
Top 3''], at 4:20.
\3\Id. at 5:15.
\4\Id.
\5\Press Release, Metro. Pol. Dep't, MPD Provides Update on
Response to Navy Yard Unlawful Activity (July 7, 2025).
\6\Luke Lukert, DC mayor toughens summer curfew after 20 teens
charged with fireworks offenses, WTOP News (Jul. 8, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``Enclave Clause''--as articulated in Article I,
Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution--
provides Congressional authority to ``exercise exclusive
Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District.'' And
the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (Home Rule Act), which
was signed into law in 1973, provides a charter for the local
government of the District of Columbia granting a degree of
self-governance to D.C. officials, including the authority to
legislate, conduct elections, and otherwise govern local
municipal affairs.\7\ Under the Home Rule Act, Congress has the
right to enact legislation for D.C. on any subject, including
legislation to amend or repeal any law in force in the
District, prior to or after enactment, and any act passed by
the D.C. Council.\8\ Congress also retains control over the
District's budget,\9\ and the President appoints the District's
judges.\10\ Section 740 of the Home Rule Act explicitly grants
the President the authority to assume control of the
Metropolitan Police force as the President deems necessary and
appropriate to respond to ``special conditions of an emergency
nature''.\11\ If the President deems it necessary to extend
this appropriation of control beyond 48 hours, he must notify
the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House Oversight and
Government Reform and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs Committees of his reasoning for exercising this
authority and the period of time which the need for such
services is likely to continue.\12\ The emergency use of the
Metropolitan Police force shall terminate upon the end of such
an emergency, the expiration of thirty days following when the
Metropolitan Police were first made available, or upon the
adoption of a resolution to terminate by either the Senate or
House, whichever comes first.\13\ The Senate and House may
approve of use extending beyond a thirty day period through a
concurrent resolution.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\District of Columbia Home Rule Act, Pub. L. No. 93-198 Sec. 601;
87 Stat. 774 (1973).
\8\Id.
\9\Id. Sec. 603.
\10\Id. Sec. 433.
\11\Id. Sec. 740(a).
\12\Id.
\13\Id. Sec. 740(c).
\14\Id. Sec. 740(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 11, 2025, President Trump announced major steps
to address out-of-control crime in the District.\15\ President
Trump declared a public safety emergency over the city (EO
14333--Declaring a Crime Emergency in the District of Columbia)
and, pursuant to authority granted to the President under
Section 740 of the Home Rule Act, took control of the MPD.\16\
This is the first time a President has invoked Section 740.
President Trump subsequently signed a memorandum to permit
Secretary of Defense Hegseth to deploy the National Guard into
D.C. to support the work of local law enforcement and to
enforce law and order.\17\ Additionally, hundreds of federal
agents were deployed into the District by the Department of
Justice (DOJ) from such agencies as the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), Bureau of Arms, Tobacco, and Firearms
(ATF), and more.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\President Trump Holds a Press Conference, Aug. 11, 2025, The
White House (Aug. 11, 2025). [hereinafter ``White House Press
Conference''].
\16\Exec Order No. 14333, 90 Fed. Reg. 39301 (Aug. 14, 2025).
\17\White House Press Conference, supra note 15.
\18\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Trump additionally signed two Executive Orders to
solidify the Administration's work with the District. Building
upon the first EO exercising control over the District's police
force, the President issued EO 14339 (Additional Measures To
Address the Crime Emergency in the District of Columbia) which
addresses restoring safety as well as prioritizing the re-
beautification of the District.\19\ The President also signed
EO 14340 (Measures To End Cashless Bail and Enforce the Law in
the District of Columbia) addressing cashless bail and
unwarranted pretrial release practices in the District.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\Exec. Order No. 14339, 90 Fed. Reg. 42121 (Aug. 28, 2025).
\20\Exec. Order No. 14340, 90 Fed. Reg. 42125 (Aug. 28, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the President's orders, the Chairman of the DC
Police Union said the union, ``acknowledges and supports the
President's announcement this morning to assume temporary
control of the MPD in response to the escalating crime crisis
in Washington, D.C.''\21\ Mayor Murial Bowser contends that
D.C. is safer than in the 2023 crime spike but otherwise said
that she would work with President Trump as Home Rule
requires.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\Spencer Allen Brooks (@SpencerSays), X, (Aug. 11, 2025, 1:06
PM), available at https://x.com/SpencerSays/status/1954952652887834716.
\22\Meagan Flynn, et al., D.C. Mayor Bowser sticks with cautious
approach amid Trump's takeover, The Wash. Post (Aug. 11, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following this announcement, U.S. Attorney for the District
of Columbia Jeanine Pirro blamed the D.C. Council and D.C.
Attorney General Schwalb for the crime crisis. Citing lack of
prosecutions of juveniles and rising violent crime in the
District, Pirro called for the Council and AG Schwalb to make
immediate changes to stop the crime crisis in D.C.\23\ Mayor
Bowser agreed with some of U.S. Attorney Pirro's concerns while
committing to examine laws at issue and potentially address
these concerns in an omnibus package.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\Id.
\24\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 27, Mayor Bowser held a press conference where
she credited the Trump Administration's deployment of federal
law enforcement personnel with a dramatic decrease in crime
between August 11 and August 25.\25\ Carjackings had decreased
87% during this period.\26\ Nearly 1,200 arrests have been made
since President Trump's actions, including members of
designated foreign terrorist organizations MS-13 and Tren de
Aragua.\27\ During this time, federal law enforcement also
seized nearly 120 illegal firearms\28\ and busted a drug
trafficking ring attempting to smuggle fentanyl, PCP, and
cocaine into D.C.\29\ A joint effort by ICE and MPD resulted in
the arrest of an illegal alien previously charged with sex
crimes against a child.\30\ Most notably, D.C. went a full 12
days without a single homicide.\31\ U.S. Attorney Pirro
reported that 88% of arrests made between the start of the
federal deployment on August 11 and August 25 resulted in
charges being filed\32\ representing a substantially higher
than in 2024 where the Biden-appointed U.S. Attorney charged
suspects only 57% of the time.\33\ Clearly the Executive
actions taken by the Trump Administration are working.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\Rebeca Shabad, Bowser says Trump's police takeover has lowered
D.C. crime, NBC News (Aug. 27, 2025).
\26\Rebecca Shabad, Mayor Muriel Bowser says Trump's surge of
federal law enforcement has lowered crime in D.C., Yahoo! News (Aug.
27, 2025).
\27\Cameron Arcand, Trump's DC crime crackdown busts another
alleged Tren de Aragua gang member: `Make DC Safe Again,' Fox News
(Aug. 26, 2025).
\28\Id.
\29\Shabad, supra note 25.
\30\Press Release, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, ICE,
Metro PD arrest illegal Mexican alien previously charged with sex
crimes against a Virginia child (Aug. 27, 2025).
\31\Sam Kosmas, Trump's executive orders target DC crime as city
hits 12 days without a homicide, Fox 5 Washington, D.C. (Aug. 25,
2025).
\32\Nick Beake & Lucy Gilder, Has crime in Washington fallen two
weeks on from Trump's crackdown?, BBC (Aug. 27, 2025).
\33\Off. of the U.S. Att'y for D.C., 2024 Violent Crime Outcomes
(Dec. 31, 2024), at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2016, the D.C. Council passed the IRAA, providing
criminals convicted of serious crimes committed before their
18th birthday to petition the court for a sentence reduction
after serving at least 15 years, regardless of mandatory
minimum sentences. Since then, violent crime in Washington,
D.C. has soared, particularly carjacking, among juvenile
offenders. Former D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham has publicly
stated: ``These young people knew they could get away with it .
. . There was very little consequence, and it spiraled out of
control.''\34\ Metropolitan Police carjacking task force
leader, Lieutenant Scott Dowling has said ``the same people
were committing multiple, multiple, multiple offenses,''
mentioning one 2023 case where just three people were arrested
for suspicion of carrying out roughly 50 carjackings and
thefts.\35\ Furthermore, the SCAA expanded expungement and
records sealing for more individuals, as well as expanded
automatic expungement for certain crimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\Rich Schapiro, Carjacked in the capital: The `crime of the
pandemic' is still roiling D.C., NBC News (Aug, 24, 2025).
\35\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collectively, these D.C. laws have created an environment
where convicted criminals in the District are not held fully
accountable for their crimes. Notably, United States Attorney
for the District of Columbia Jeanine Ferris Pirro has expressed
strong concern about these current laws, calling on the DC
Council ``to immediately reconsider the'' legislation while her
two predecessors have also echoed many of her concerns with the
SCAA, specifically.\36\ Pirro stresses the problems with using
limited criminal justice resources on the process ``sealing
past convictions rather than addressing present threats and
prosecuting crime.''\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\Letter from Jeanine Ferris Pirro, United States Attorney,
District of Columbia, to the Council of the District of Columbia (Aug.
6, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/media/1410891/dl.
\37\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By repealing these two laws, H.R. 5242 would help restore
justice and accountability by better ensuring that the
criminals in our nation's capital remain in jail until the
sentence imposed by the criminal justice system is fully
realized. The effects of H.R. 5242 will apply to criminal
conduct occurring after the date of enactment of the act so as
to not impact those who have already utilized the IRAA and the
SCAA.
In addition to addressing juvenile crime in the District of
Columbia by repealing these two existing laws, the bill, as
reported by the Committee, also repeals two other provisions in
local D.C. law dealing with local traffic management.
Specifically, the bill repeals Title IX of the Fiscal Year 1997
Budget Support Act of 1996 (sec. 50-2209.01 et seq., D.C.
Official Code), which relates to automated traffic enforcement
by striking both the mayor's authorization to use automated
traffic enforcement systems and the liability for an owner of a
vehicle to pay fines associated with a traffic infraction from
an automated traffic enforcement system. Furthermore, the bill
repeals section 9e of the District of Columbia Traffic Act of
1925, approved March 3, 1925 (sec. 50-2201.04e, D.C. Official
Code) which provides for the District's ability to erect
signage prohibiting right turns on red, prohibits right turns
on red, and requires an education campaign on the law. It is
the Committee's view that--rather than relying on traffic
enforcement systems that do less to advance traffic safety than
harass unsuspecting citizens and visitors to bridge budget
gaps--the Washington, D.C. municipal government should
implement sound budget policies that match modest spending
levels with proper revenue sources.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Repeal of Second Chance Amendment Act of 2022 and
Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act of 2016
Subsection (a) repeals the Second Chance Amendment Act of
2022 (D.C. Law 24-284) to restore the D.C. Code to reflect the
codified language predating the passage of the Act.
Subsection (b) repeals the Incarceration Reduction
Amendment Act of 2016 (title III of the Comprehensive Youth
Justice Amendment Act of 2016; D.C. Law 21-238) to restore the
D.C. Code to reflect the codified language predating the
passage of the Act.
Section 2. Termination of automated traffic enforcement system
Repeals Title IX of the FY 1997 Budget Support Act of 1996
(sec. 50-2209.01 et seq., D.C. Official Code), which relates to
automated traffic enforcement. The amendment strikes the
mayor's authorization to use automated traffic enforcement
systems and strikes the requirement for an owner of a vehicle
to pay fines associated with a traffic infraction from an
automated traffic enforcement system.
Section 3. Eliminating restrictions on right turns at red traffic
signals.
Repeals section 9e of the District of Columbia Traffic Act,
1925 (sec. 50-2201.04e, D.C. Official Code) which directs the
District government to erect signage prohibiting right turns on
red and requires an education campaign on the law.
Section 4. Effective date
Clarifies that the bill applies to criminal conduct
occurring after the date of enactment.
Legislative History
H.R. 5242, to repeal the Second Chance Amendment Act of
2022 and the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act of 2016, was
introduced on September 10, 2025, by Representative David
Kustoff (R-TN). The following Representative is a cosponsor of
the bill: Joe Wilson (R-SC). The bill was referred to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The Committee
considered H.R. 5242 at a business meeting on September 10,
2025, and ordered the bill, as amended, favorably reported by a
recorded vote.
Committee Consideration
On September 10, 2025, the Committee met in open session
and ordered the bill, H.R. 5242, favorably reported, by a roll
call vote of 24-20, 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 votes
occurred during the Committee's consideration of H.R. 5242:
The first roll call vote was on Amendment #1 offered by Mr.
Comer to H.R. 5242. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
The second roll call vote was on Amendment #1 offered by
Mr. Perry to H.R. 5242. The amendment was agreed to in a
recorded vote of 25-20.
The third roll call vote was on Amendment #2 offered by Mr.
Perry to H.R. 5242. The amendment was not agreed to in a
recorded vote of 25-20.
The fourth roll call vote was on favorably reporting H.R.
5242. The bill was agreed to in a recorded vote of 24-20.
Explanation of Amendments
During Committee consideration of the bill, Representative
James Comer (R-KY), Chairman of the Committee, offered an
amendment to H.R. 5242 that would make a technical change and
add an effective date. The amendment passed by voice vote.
Representative Scott Perry (R-PA) offered an amendment to
H.R. 5242 that would terminate the automated traffic
enforcement system. The amendment passed by recorded vote.
Representative Scott Perry (R-PA) offered an amendment to
H.R. 5242 that would eliminate restrictions on right turns at
red traffic signals. The amendment passed by recorded 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. 5242:
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 repeal the Second
Chance Amendment Act of 2022 and the Incarceration Reduction
Amendment Act of 2016.
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 cost
estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 is as follows:
Summary of legislation: On September 10, 2025, the House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform ordered 14 bills
to be reported. This document provides estimates for nine of
those bills.
Estimated Federal cost: The costs of the legislation fall
within budget function 800 (general government) and 300
(natural resources and environment).
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that each
bill will be enacted by the end of calendar year 2025 and that
the estimated amounts will be appropriated each year. This cost
estimate does not include any effects of interactions among the
pieces of legislation. If all nine bills were combined and
enacted as a single piece of legislation, the effects could be
different from the sum of the separate estimates, although CBO
expects that any differences would be small.
Spending subject to appropriation: CBO estimates that
implementing three of the bills, H.R. 5103, H.R. 5179, and H.R.
5183, would increase spending subject to appropriation by
insignificant amounts. Any related spending for those bills
would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. We
further estimate that implementing the other six bills, H.R.
2693, H.R. 5107, H.R. 5163, H.R. 5172, H.R. 5214, and H.R.
5242, would have no effect on spending subject to
appropriation.
H.R. 2693, the District of Columbia Electronic Transmittal
of Legislation Act of 2025, would amend the District of
Columbia Home Rule Act to explicitly allow the chair of the
Council of the District of Columbia to electronically transmit
to the Congress any act passed by the council; under current
law physical copies must be delivered. CBO estimates enacting
H.R. 2693 would have no cost to the federal government.
H.R. 5103, the Make the District of Columbia Safe and
Beautiful Act of 2025, would expand Executive Order 14252 to
require the Department of the Interior to implement a
beautification program in the district. The bill also would
establish within the executive branch the District of Columbia
Safe and Beautiful Commission to develop and coordinate
priorities for the full enforcement of federal and local laws
within the District of Columbia. The bill also would require
the commission to report its findings to the Congress. The
authority for the program and the commission would end on
January 2, 2029. Based on the cost of similar activities, CBO
estimates that the cost of implementing H.R. 5103 would be
insignificant over the 2026-2030 period.
H.R. 5107, the CLEAN DC Act of 2025, would repeal sections
of the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act
of 2022 (D.C. Law 24-345), which established certain
restrictions and requirements for the Metropolitan Police
Department. Because the bill would affect only the District of
Columbia, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 5107 would have no
cost to the federal government.
H.R. 5163, the Clean and Managed Public Spaces Act, would
impose civil and criminal penalties for camping on public
property within the District of Columbia. Because the bill
would affect only the District of Columbia, CBO estimates that
enacting H.R. 5163 would have no cost to the federal
government.
H.R. 5172, the Strong Sentences for Safer D.C. Streets Act
of 2025, would make changes to the District of Columbia Code
regarding mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines for various
violent offenses. Because the bill would affect only the
District of Columbia, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 5172
would have no cost to the federal government.
H.R. 5179, the District of Columbia Attorney General
Appointment Reform Act of 2025, would amend the District of
Columbia Home Rule Act by overturning the election of the
current attorney general for the District of Columbia and
authorizing the President to appoint a new attorney general.
The current attorney general's appointment would terminate on
the date of enactment. Based on the cost of similar activities,
CBO estimates that the cost of implementing H.R. 5179 would be
insignificant over the 2026-2030 period.
H.R. 5183, the District of Columbia Home Rule Improvement
Act of 2025, would amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act
to establish a uniform 60-day Congressional review period for
all legislation, regulations, and executive actions of the
District of Columbia; create a line-item veto during
Congressional review; eliminate the ability of the Council of
the District of Columbia to extend emergency laws; prohibit the
council from withdrawing legislation from the Congressional
review process; and prohibit the council from passing laws that
are substantially similar to legislation disapproved by the
Congress. The bill also would provide for expedited
consideration of resolutions of disapproval within the House
and the Senate. Based on the cost of similar activities, CBO
estimates that the cost of implementing H.R. 5183 would be
insignificant over the 2026-2030 period.
H.R. 5214, the District of Columbia Cash Bail Reform Act of
2025, would amend the Code of the District of Columbia to
require mandatory pretrial detention for defendants charged
with certain violent crimes and require mandatory cash bail or
bail bonds for all defendants charged with other specified
crimes. Because the bill would affect only the District of
Columbia, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would have no
cost to the federal government.
H.R. 5242, a bill to repeal the Second Chance Amendment Act
of 2022 and the Incarceration Reduction Amendment of 2016,
would repeal two laws that reduced criminal penalties for youth
offenders in the District of Columbia. Because the bill would
affect only the District of Columbia, CBO estimates that
enacting the bill would have no cost to the federal government.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or
revenues. None of the bills would affect direct spending or
revenues; thus, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
Increase in long-term net direct spending and deficits. CBO
estimates that none of the bills would increase net direct
spending or deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year
periods beginning in 2036.
Mandates: CBO has determined that six of the nine bills
would impose intergovernmental mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). Only one, H.R. 5242, would
impose mandates that exceed the annual intergovernmental
threshold established in UMRA ($103 million in 2025, adjusted
annually for inflation).
H.R. 5242 would impose intergovernmental mandates as
defined in UMRA by preempting some laws of the District of
Columbia. CBO considers such preemptions to be
intergovernmental mandates under UMRA. The bill would repeal
two laws that reduced criminal penalties for youth offenders.
H.R. 5242 also would prohibit the city from operating an
automated traffic enforcement system and from restricting right
turns on red traffic lights. Using budget documents from the
District of Columbia, CBO estimates that automatic traffic
enforcement generates about $300 million annually and that the
city would lose that amount of revenue under the bill.
CBO has determined that the following bills also would
impose intergovernmental mandates but estimates that the cost
of the mandates in each bill would not exceed the annual
threshold established in UMRA:
H.R. 5107 would repeal most of the
Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act
of 2022 (D.C. Law 24-345).
H.R. 5172 would increase mandatory minimum
sentences for certain crimes in the District of
Columbia.
H.R. 5179 would preempt D.C. law by
repealing the local election of the current attorney
general for the District of Columbia and giving
authority to the President to appoint someone to that
position.
H.R. 5183 would expand Congressional review
over the District of Columbia's laws and regulations,
limit the city's emergency authority, and create a
line-item veto during Congressional review.
H.R. 5214 would require mandatory pretrial
detention for defendants charged with violent crimes
and require cash bail or bail bonds for defendants
charged with other crimes as designated by the bill.
CBO has determined that none of the nine bills would impose
a private-sector mandate as defined in UMRA.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Matthew Pickford,
Alaina Rhee; Mandates: Andrew Laughlin.
Estimate reviewed by: Ann Futrell, Chief, Natural and
Physical Resources Cost Estimates Unit; Kathleen FitzGerald,
Chief, Public and Private Mandates Unit; H. Samuel Papenfuss,
Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
Estimate approved by: Phillip L. Swagel, Director,
Congressional Budget Office.
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):
SECOND CHANCE AMENDMENT ACT OF 2022
Be It Enacted By The Council of the District of Columbia, [That
this Act may be cited as the ``Second Chance Amendment Act of
2022''].
[TITLE I--CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING AND EXPUNGEMENT
[Sec. 101. Title 16 of the District of Columbia Official
Code is amended as follows:
[(a) The table of contents is amended by striking the phrase
``8. Criminal Record Sealing'' and inserting the phrase ``8.
Criminal Record Sealing and Expungement'' in its place.
[(b) Chapter 8 is amended to read as follows:
[``CHAPTER 8--CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING AND EXPUNGEMENT
[Sec. 16-801. Definitions
[`` For the purposes of this chapter, the term:
[``(1) `Clerk' means the Clerk of the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia.
[``(2) `Completion of the sentence' means the person
has been unconditionally discharged from incarceration,
commitment, probation, parole, or supervised release,
whichever is latest; provided, that nonpayment of
fines, restitution, or any other monetary assessments
imposed by the Court shall not prevent completion of a
sentence.
[``(3) `Conviction' means the entry of judgment on a
verdict or a finding of guilty, a plea of guilty or a
plea of nolo contendere, or a plea or verdict of not
guilty by reason of insanity.
[``(4) `Court' means the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia.
[``(5) `Public' means any person, agency,
organization, or entity other than any:
[``(A) Court;
[``(B) Federal, state, or local prosecutor;
[``(C) Law enforcement agency;
[``(D) Licensing agency, with respect to a
criminal offense that may disqualify a person
from obtaining that license;
[``(E) Licensed school, day care center,
before or after school facility or other
educational or child protection agency or
facility; and
[``(F) Government employer or nominating or
tenure commission with respect to:
[``(i) Employment of a judicial or
quasi-judicial officer; or
[``(ii) Employment at a senior-level,
executive-grade government position.
[Sec. 16-802. Automatic expungement of criminal records
[``(a) The Court shall order automatic expungement of all
criminal records and court proceedings related only to
citations, arrests, charges, or convictions for the commission
of a criminal offense that has subsequently been
decriminalized, legalized, or held to be unconstitutional by
the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or the
Supreme Court of the United States, or records related only to
simple possession for any quantity of marijuana in violation of
Sec. 48-904.01(d)(1) before February 15, 2015, if:
[``(1) The case was terminated by the prosecutor or
otherwise reached a final disposition; and
[``(2) The prosecutor has not:
[``(A) Filed a written motion, which may be
made ex parte, to:
[``(i) Retain and sequester the
record for a limited period of time; or
[``(ii) Contest that a particular
person qualifies for expungement under
this section; and
[``(B) Demonstrated by clear and convincing
evidence that:
[``(i) Retention is necessary for a
lawful purpose, such as:
[``(I) Investigating,
prosecuting, or defending
another criminal case;
[``(II) Complying with
disclosure obligations in
another criminal case; or
[``(III) Determining the
person's suitability for
diversion, release, sentencing
reduction, or record sealing in
another case; or
[``(ii) The person does not qualify
for expungement under this section.
[``(b) Eligible criminal records and court proceedings
related to citations, arrests, charges, and convictions shall
be expunged pursuant to subsection (a) of this section by
January 1, 2025, or within 90 days after termination of the
case by the prosecutor or final disposition, whichever is
later.
[Sec. 16-803. Expungement of criminal records by motion
[``(a) The Court shall order expungement of all criminal
records and court proceedings related only to citations,
arrests, or charges for the commission of a criminal offense on
the grounds of actual innocence if:
[``(1) The case was terminated by the prosecutor or
otherwise reached a final disposition and did not
result in a conviction or acquittal pursuant to Sec.
24-501; and
[``(2) The person cited, arrested, or charged files a
written motion and demonstrates, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that the offense for which the person was
cited, arrested, or charged:
[``(A) Did not occur; or
[``(B) Was not committed by the person.
[``(b) A motion filed pursuant to subsection (a)(2) of this
section:
[``(1) Shall state:
[``(A) The grounds upon which eligibility for
expungement is based; and
[``(B) Facts in support of the movant's
claim; and
[``(2) May be:
[``(A) Accompanied by a statement of points
and authorities in support of the motion, and
any appropriate exhibits, affidavits, and
supporting documents; and
[``(B) Filed at any time.
[``(c) A copy of the motion and any amended motion shall be
served upon the prosecutor.
[``(d)(1) If it plainly appears from the face of the motion,
any accompanying exhibits, affidavits, and documents, and the
record of any prior proceedings in the case, that the movant is
not eligible for relief or not entitled to relief, the Court
may dismiss or deny the motion.
[``(2) If the motion is not dismissed or denied after
initial review, the Court:
[``(A) Shall determine whether a hearing on
the motion is required; and
[``(B) May:
[``(i) Order the prosecutor to file a
response to the motion; and
[``(ii) Set a deadline by which the
response shall be filed.
[``(3) At any hearing on the motion, the movant and
the prosecutor may present witnesses and information by
proffer or otherwise. Hearsay evidence shall be
admissible.
[``(4) An order dismissing, granting, or denying the
motion shall be:
[``(A) In writing and include reasons for the
decision;
[``(B) A final order for purposes of appeal;
and
[``(C) Issued no later than 180 days after
the motion is filed, unless there exists good
cause for delay.
[``(5) A motion made pursuant to this section may be
dismissed without prejudice to permit the movant to
renew the motion after further passage of time.
[``(6) If the Court denies the motion, the Court
shall entertain a second motion for the same relief no
sooner than one year after the date on which the order
on the initial motion was resolved, unless the second
motion raises grounds different than the first motion,
in which case, it shall be entertained at any time. If
the Court denies the movant's second motion, the Court
shall entertain a third and final motion no sooner than
one year after the date on which the order on the
second motion was resolved, unless the third motion
raises grounds different than the first 2 motions, in
which case, it shall be entertained at any time.
[``(7) If the Court grants the motion, it shall
summarize in the order the factual circumstances of the
challenged citation, arrest, or charge and any post-
arrest occurrences it deems relevant, and shall rule as
a matter of law that the movant did not commit the
offense for which the movant was arrested or that no
offense had been committed.
[``(e) An acquittal or dismissal shall not establish a
presumption that the movant is innocent or entitled to relief
pursuant to this section.
[``(f) Eligible criminal records and court proceedings
related to citations, arrests, and charges shall be expunged
pursuant to subsection (a) of this section within 90 days after
a motion is granted.
[Sec. 16-804. Effect of expungement of criminal records
[``(a) The effect of expungement shall be to restore a
person, in the contemplation of the law, to the status they
occupied before being cited, arrested, charged, or convicted.
[``(b) No person as to whom criminal record expungement
relief has been granted shall be held thereafter under any
provision of law to be guilty of perjury or otherwise giving a
false statement by reason of failure to acknowledge or disclose
that citation, arrest, charge, prosecution, disposition, or
conviction, in response to any inquiry made of them for any
purpose.
[``(c) If the Court orders that a criminal record be
expunged:
[``(1) The Clerk and each prosecutor and law
enforcement, corrections, pretrial, and community
supervision agency shall:
[``(A) Eliminate from all publicly available
physical and computerized records any
references that identify the person as having
been cited, arrested, prosecuted, or convicted;
[``(B) Be entitled to retain records relating
to the person's citation, arrest, prosecution,
and conviction in a nonpublic, restricted
access file; and
[``(C) Reply in response to public inquiries
concerning the existence of the records that no
records are available;
[``(2) Each prosecutor and law enforcement,
corrections, pretrial, and community supervision agency
shall file a certification with the Court within 90
days after an order to expunge is issued that, to the
best of its knowledge and belief, all references that
identify the person as having been cited, arrested,
prosecuted, or convicted have been expunged;
[``(3) The Clerk shall:
[``(A) Retain a nonpublic record,
appropriately and securely indexed to protect
its confidentiality, containing records
retrieved pursuant to this section and the
certifications filed pursuant to paragraph (2)
of this subsection; and
[``(B) Make reasonable efforts to provide a
copy of the order to expunge and the
certifications filed pursuant to paragraph (2)
of this subsection to the person who was cited,
arrested, charged, or convicted, or their
counsel:
[``(i) When the Court issues the
order;
[``(ii) When the certifications are
filed pursuant to paragraph (2) of this
subsection; and
[``(iii) At any time, upon proper
identification, without a showing of
need;
[``(4) In a case involving co-defendants in which the
Court orders the person's criminal records be expunged,
the Court shall order, to the extent practicable:
[``(A) That only those records, or portions
thereof, relating solely to the person be
redacted;
[``(B) That the person's name be redacted
from records that are not expunged; and
[``(C) The redaction of references to the
person that appear in a transcript of court
proceedings involving co-defendants; and
[``(5) The Court shall not be required to order the
redaction of the person's name from any published
opinion of the trial or appellate courts that refers to
the person.
[``(d)(1) Records retained in a nonpublic file pursuant to
this section shall only be available to:
[``(A) The person who was cited, arrested,
charged, or convicted, or their counsel;
[``(B) A prosecutor, defense attorney, law
enforcement, corrections, pretrial, or
community supervision agency, for the purpose
of:
[``(i) Investigating, prosecuting, or
defending another criminal case;
[``(ii) Complying with disclosure
obligations in another criminal case;
or
[``(iii) Determining the person's
suitability for diversion, release,
sentencing reduction, or record sealing
in another case; and
[``(C) Other persons or entities for the
purpose of:
[``(i) Use in civil litigation
related to the citation, charge,
arrest, or conviction; or
[``(ii) Upon order of the Court for
good cause shown, such as for
anonymized records for academic or
journalistic purposes.
[``(2) A request for access to or to disclose
expunged records may be made ex parte and may be
granted by the Court for good cause shown.
[``(3) If the Court permits a requestor to access or
disclose expunged records, the Court and the requestor
shall take all reasonable measures to ensure that the
records are secure and that the contents are not
identifiably disclosed, published, or redistributed,
such as by issuing a protective order or electronically
limiting access to verified viewers.
[``(4) A person, upon making inquiry of the Court
concerning the existence of criminal records involving
an individual, shall be entitled to rely, for any
purpose under the law, upon the clerk's response that
no records are available with respect to any issue
about that person's knowledge of the individual's
record.
[Sec. 16-805. Automatic sealing of criminal records
[``(a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter and in
subsection (b) of this section, the Court shall order automatic
sealing of all criminal records and court proceedings related
to:
[``(1) Citations, arrests, or charges for the
commission of a criminal offense; provided, that the
case was terminated by the prosecutor or otherwise
reached a final disposition and did not result in a
conviction or acquittal pursuant to Sec. 24-501; and
[``(2) Citations, arrests, charges, and convictions
for the commission of a misdemeanor offense that
resulted in a conviction; provided, that a waiting
period of at least 10 years has elapsed since
completion of the sentence.
[``(b) The Court shall not order automatic sealing pursuant
to this section if the citation, arrest, charge, or conviction
is for:
[``(1) An intrafamily offense, as defined in Sec.
16-1001(8);
[``(2) Parental kidnapping, as described in Sec. 16-
1022;
[``(3) Criminal abuse of a vulnerable adult or
elderly person, as described in Sec. 22-933;
[``(4) Financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult
or elderly person, as described in Sec. 22-933.01;
[``(5) Refusal or neglect of a guardian to provide
for child under 14 years of age, as described in Sec.
22-1102;
[``(6) Incest, as defined in Sec. 22-1901;
[``(7) Misdemeanor sexual abuse, as defined in Sec.
22-3006;
[``(8) Violation of Chapter 30A of Title 22;
[``(9) Violation of Chapter 31 of Title 22;
[``(10) Violation of Chapter 31A of Title 22;
[``(11) An offense for which sex offender
registration is required pursuant to Chapter 40 of
Title 22, and the registration period has not expired;
[``(12) Violation of Chapter 40 of Title 22, as
described in Sec. 22-4015;
[``(13) A dangerous crime, as defined in Sec. 23-
1331(3);
[``(14) A crime of violence, as defined in Sec. 23-
1331(4);
[``(15) Driving under the influence (known as DUI) of
alcohol or a drug, as described in Sec. 50-2206.11;
[``(16) Driving under the influence of alcohol or a
drug; commercial vehicle, as described in Sec. 50-
2206.12; or
[``(17) Operating a vehicle while impaired, as
described in Sec. 50-2206.14.
[``(c) Criminal records and court proceedings:
[``(1) Related to citations, arrests, and charges
sealed pursuant to subsection (a)(1) of this section:
[``(A) For which the case was terminated by
the prosecutor or otherwise reached a final
disposition and did not result in a conviction
or acquittal pursuant to Sec. 24-501 prior to
the effective date of the Second Chance
Amendment Act of 2022, passed on 2nd reading on
December 20, 2022 (Enrolled version of Bill 24-
63), shall be sealed by January 1, 2027, or
within 90 days after termination of the case by
the prosecutor or final disposition, whichever
is later; and
[``(B) For which the case was terminated by
the prosecutor or otherwise reached a final
disposition and did not result in a conviction
or acquittal pursuant to Sec. 24-501 on or
after the effective date of the Second Chance
Amendment Act of 2022, on 2nd reading on
December 20, 2022 (Enrolled version of Bill 24-
63), shall be sealed within 90 days after
termination of the case by the prosecutor or
final disposition, whichever is later; and
[``(2) Related to citations, arrests, charges, and
convictions sealed pursuant to subsection (a)(2) of
this section shall be sealed by January 1, 2027, or
within 90 days after the expiration of the waiting
period, whichever is later.
[Sec. 16-806. Sealing of criminal records by motion
[``(a) The Court shall order the sealing of all criminal
records and court proceedings related to:
[``(1) Citations, arrests, and charges for the
commission of a criminal offense; provided, that:
[``(A) The case was terminated by the
prosecutor or otherwise reached a final
disposition and did not result in a conviction
or acquittal pursuant to Sec. 24-501;
[``(B) The offense is an offense listed in
Sec. 16-805(b); and
[``(C) The person cited, arrested, or charged
files a written motion demonstrating, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that it is in
the interests of justice to seal the records;
[``(2) Citations, arrests, and charges only for being
a fugitive from justice; provided, that:
[``(A) The person was arrested in the
District as a fugitive from justice;
[``(B) The person waived an extradition
hearing pursuant to Sec. 23-702(f)(1) and was
released pursuant to Sec. 23-702(f)(2) or
detained pursuant to Sec. 23-702(f)(3);
[``(C) The fugitive case was terminated by
the prosecutor or otherwise reached a final
disposition; and
[``(D) The person cited, arrested, or charged
files a written motion demonstrating, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that:
[``(i) They have appeared before the
proper official in the jurisdiction
from which they were a fugitive; and
[``(ii) It is in the interests of
justice to seal the records; and
[``(3) Citations, arrests, charges, and convictions
for the commission of a criminal offense that resulted
in a conviction; provided, that:
[``(A)(i) For a misdemeanor offense, a
waiting period of at least 5 years has elapsed
since completion of the sentence; and
[``(ii) For a felony offense, a waiting
period of at least 8 years has elapsed since
completion of the sentence; except, that an
offense in Offense Severity Group 1, 2, or 3 of
the Master Grid, developed by the District of
Columbia Sentencing Commission, at the time of
the effective date of the Second Chance
Amendment Act of 2022, passed on 2nd reading on
December 20, 2022 (Enrolled version of Bill 24-
63), shall not be eligible for sealing; and
[``(B) The person cited, arrested, charged,
or convicted files a written motion
demonstrating, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that it is in the interests of
justice to seal the records.
[``(b)(1) The Court shall grant a motion to seal pursuant to
subsection (a) of this section if it is in the interests of
justice to do so.
[``(2) In making a determination to grant a motion to seal,
the Court:
[``(A) Shall weigh:
[``(i) The interests of the movant in sealing
the publicly available records of their
citations, charges, arrests, or convictions;
[``(ii) The community's interest in
furthering the movant's rehabilitation and
enhancing the movant's reintegration into
society through education, employment, and
housing; and
[``(iii) The community's interest in
retaining access to those records, including
the interest of current or prospective
employers in making fully informed hiring or
job assignment decisions and the interest in
promoting public safety; and
[``(B) May consider:
[``(i) The nature and circumstances of the
offense;
[``(ii) The movant's role in the offense or
alleged offense;
[``(iii) The history and characteristics of
the movant, including the movant's:
[``(I) Character;
[``(II) Physical and mental
condition;
[``(III) Employment history;
[``(IV) Prior and subsequent conduct;
[``(V) History relating to substance
abuse or dependence and treatment
opportunities;
[``(VI) Criminal history; and
[``(VII) Efforts at rehabilitation;
[``(iv) The time that has elapsed since the
offense;
[``(v) Any statement made by the victim of
the offense;
[``(vi) The position of the prosecutor, if
any; and
[``(vii) Any other information it considers
relevant.
[``(c)(1) A motion to seal filed pursuant to this section:
[``(A) Shall state:
[``(i) All of the movant's unsealed and
unexpunged citations, arrests, charges, and
convictions, as reasonably known to the movant;
[``(ii) The grounds upon which eligibility
for sealing is based; and
[``(iii) Facts in support of the movant's
claim; and
[``(B) May be accompanied by a statement of points
and authorities in support of the motion, and any
appropriate exhibits, affidavits, and supporting
documents.
[``(2)(A) If the Court determines that the motion filed
pursuant to this section does not comply with the requirements
of paragraph (1) of this subsection, the movant shall have 30
days after being notified by the Court of the noncompliance to
amend their original motion to include all of their citations,
arrests, charges, and convictions.
[``(B) If the movant fails to amend their original motion
within 30 days after notification by the Court, then the motion
shall be dismissed without prejudice.
[``(d) A copy of the motion and any amended motion shall be
served upon the prosecutor; provided, that the prosecutor shall
not be required to respond to the motion unless ordered to do
so by the Court.
[``(e) The waiting periods in subsection (a)(3)(A) of this
section may be waived by the prosecutor in writing.
[``(f)(1) If the movant files a motion to seal a record that
is not in the Court database or a record and related court
proceedings that are not in a publicly available database, the
motion to seal and responsive pleadings shall not be available
publicly.
[``(2) If the Court grants a motion to seal, it shall order
that the motion and responsive pleadings be sealed to the same
extent and in the same manner as the records pertaining to the
record and related court proceedings.
[``(3) If the Court denies a motion to seal, the Court, the
United States Attorney's Office, the Office of the Attorney
General, and the law enforcement agency that arrested the
movant shall be entitled to retain any and all records relating
to the motion in a nonpublic file.
[``(g) A person to whom a District arrest has been
attributed, who attests under oath that the person was
incorrectly identified or named, may file a motion to correct
publicly available records of the arrest if the law enforcement
agency did not take fingerprints at the time of the arrest and
no other form of reliable identification was presented by the
person who was arrested.
[``(h) A movant shall not be required to:
[``(1) Satisfy the waiting periods in subsection
(a)(3)(A) of this section with respect to all of the
movant's citations, arrests, charges, and convictions;
or
[``(2) Seek relief with respect to all the arrests,
charges, or convictions eligible for relief.
[``(i)(1) If it plainly appears from the face of the motion,
any accompanying exhibits, affidavits, and documents, and the
record of any prior proceedings in the case, that the movant is
not eligible for relief or not entitled to relief, the Court
may dismiss or deny the motion.
[``(2) If the motion is not dismissed or denied after initial
review, the Court:
[``(A) Shall determine whether a hearing on the
motion is required; and
[``(B) May:
[``(i) Order the prosecutor to file a
response to the motion; and
[``(ii) Set a deadline by which the response
shall be filed.
[``(3) At any hearing on the motion, the movant and the
prosecutor may present witnesses and information by proffer or
otherwise. Hearsay evidence shall be admissible.
[``(4) An order dismissing, granting, or denying the motion
shall be:
[``(A) In writing and include reasons for the
decision.;
[``(B) A final order for purposes of appeal; and
[``(C) Issued no later than 180 days after the motion
is filed, unless there exists good cause for delay.
[``(5) A motion made pursuant to this section may be
dismissed without prejudice to permit the movant to renew the
motion after further passage of time.
[``(6) If the Court denies the motion, the Court shall
entertain a second motion no sooner than one year after the
date on which the order on the initial motion was resolved. If
the Court denies the movant's second motion, the Court shall
entertain a third and final motion no sooner than one year
after the date on which the order on the second motion was
resolved.
[``(j) Criminal records and court proceedings related to
citations, arrests, charges, and convictions sealed pursuant to
subsection (a) of this section shall be sealed within 90 days
after a motion to seal is granted.
[Sec. 16-807. Effect of sealing of criminal records
[``(a) The effect of criminal record sealing shall be to
remove all records related to a citation, arrest, charge,
prosecution, disposition, or conviction from public view and to
permit restricted, nonpublic access by specific parties for
specific purposes.
[``(b) No person as to whom criminal record sealing relief
has been granted shall be held thereafter under any provision
of law to be guilty of perjury or otherwise giving a false
statement by reason of failure to recite or acknowledge or
disclose that citation, arrest, charge, prosecution,
disposition, or conviction, in response to any inquiry made of
them for any purpose.
[``(c) If the Court orders that a criminal record be sealed:
[``(1) The Clerk and each prosecutor and law
enforcement, corrections, pretrial, and community
supervision agency shall:
[``(A) Eliminate from all publicly available
physical and computerized records any
references that identify the person as having
been cited, arrested, prosecuted, or convicted;
[``(B) Be entitled to retain records relating
to the person's citation, arrest, prosecution,
and conviction in a nonpublic, restricted
access file; and
[``(C) Reply in response to public inquiries
concerning the existence of the records that no
records are available;
[``(2) Each prosecutor and law enforcement,
corrections, pretrial, and community supervision agency
shall file a certification with the Court within 90
days after an order to seal is issued that, to the best
of its knowledge and belief, all references that
identify the person as having been cited, arrested,
prosecuted, or convicted have been sealed;
[``(3) The Clerk shall:
[``(A) Retain a nonpublic record,
appropriately and securely indexed to protect
its confidentiality, containing records
retrieved pursuant to this section and the
certifications filed pursuant to paragraph (2)
of this subsection; and
[``(B) Make reasonable efforts to provide a
copy of the order to seal and the
certifications filed pursuant to paragraph (2)
of this subsection to the person who was cited,
arrested, charged, or convicted, or their
counsel:
[``(i) When the Court issues the
order;
[``(ii) When the certifications are
filed pursuant to paragraph (2) of this
subsection; and
[``(iii) At any time, upon proper
identification, without a showing of
need;
[``(4) In a case involving co-defendants in which the
Court orders the person's criminal records be sealed,
the Court shall order, to the extent practicable:
[``(A) That only those records, or portions
thereof, relating solely to the person be
redacted;
[``(B) That the person's name be redacted
from records that are not sealed; and
[``(C) The redaction of references to the
person that appear in a transcript of court
proceedings involving co-defendants; and
[``(5) The Court shall not be required to order the
redaction of the person's name from any published
opinion of the trial or appellate courts that refer to
the person.
[``(d)(1) Records retained in a nonpublic file pursuant to
this section shall only be available to:
[``(A) The person who was cited, arrested, charged,
or convicted, or their counsel;
[``(B) A prosecutor, defense attorney, law
enforcement, corrections, pretrial, or community
supervision agency, for any lawful purpose, including:
[``(i) Investigating, prosecuting, or
defending another criminal case;
[``(ii) Complying with disclosure obligations
in another criminal case;
[``(iii) Determining the person's suitability
for diversion, release, sentencing reduction,
sealing, or expungement in another case;
[``(iv) The determination of conditions of
release for a subsequent arrest;
[``(v) The determination of whether a person
has committed a second or subsequent offense
for charging or sentencing purposes;
[``(vi) Determining an appropriate sentence
if the person is subsequently convicted of
another crime;
[``(vii) Employment decisions;
[``(viii) Sex offender registration and
notification;
[``(ix) Gun offender registration; or
[``(x) In determining whether a person has
been in possession of a firearm in violation of
Sec. 22-4503;
[``(C) Except for records sealed pursuant to Sec.
16-806(a)(2), a person or entity identified in Sec.
16-801(5)(D), (E), or (F), but only to the extent that
such records would have been available to that person
or entity before relief was granted. Such records may
be used for any lawful purpose, including:
[``(i) The determination of whether a person
is eligible to be licensed in a particular
trade or profession; or
[``(ii) Employment decisions; and
[``(D) Other persons or entities for the purpose of:
[``(i) Use in civil litigation related to the
citation, charge, arrest, or conviction; or
[``(ii) Upon order of the Court for good
cause shown, such as anonymized records for
academic or journalistic purposes.
[``(2) A request for access to or to disclose sealed records
may be made ex parte and may be granted for good cause shown.
[``(3) If the Court permits a requestor to access or disclose
sealed records, the Court and the requestor shall take all
reasonable measures to ensure that the records are secure and
that the contents are not identifiably disclosed, published, or
redistributed, such as by issuing a protective order or
electronically limiting access to verified viewers.
[``(4) A person, upon making inquiry of the Court concerning
the existence of criminal records involving an individual,
shall be entitled to rely, for any purpose under the law, upon
the clerk's response that no records are available with respect
to any issue about that person's knowledge of the individual's
record.
[Sec. 16-808. Applicability
[``The sealing and expungement relief available under this
chapter shall apply retroactively.
[Sec. 16-809. Savings provision
[``This chapter shall not supersede any other provision of
the District of Columbia Official Code providing for the
expungement, sealing, or setting aside of criminal citations,
arrests, charges, or convictions.''.
[TITLE II--CRIMINAL HISTORY REPORTS
[SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.
[For the purposes of this title, the term:
[(1) ``Criminal history provider'' means a person or
organization that compiles criminal history reports,
which include information about District of Columbia
Official Code or District of Columbia Municipal
Regulations criminal records or the criminal records of
District residents, and either uses the reports or
provides the reports to a third party. The term
``criminal history provider'' does not include a
government agency or a person or organization that
provide reports solely to a government agency for
purposes other than determining suitability for
government employment.
[(2) ``Criminal history report'' means criminal
history information that has been compiled for the
purposes of evaluating a person's character or
eligibility for employment, housing, or participation
in any activity or transaction; except, that
information collected or disseminated solely for
journalistic purposes shall not be a criminal history
report.
[(3) ``Government agency'' means any office,
department, division, board, commission, or other
agency of the District government, the government of
the United States, or the government of another
jurisdiction within the United States.
[SEC. 202. RESTRICTIONS ON CRIMINAL HISTORY REPORTS.
[A criminal history provider:
[(1) Shall, unless otherwise prohibited by District
or federal law:
[(A) Provide the subject of a criminal record
with a copy of the criminal history report the
criminal history provider used or provided;
[(B) State the source of reported information
and the date on which the information was
received from the source in a criminal history
report; and
[(C) Use 2 identifiers, such as date of birth
and name, before reporting a person's criminal
record; and
[(2) Shall not, unless otherwise required by District
or federal law:
[(A) Provide information relating to the
following:
[(i) A criminal record that has been
expunged, sealed, or set aside; and
[(ii) A criminal record that the
criminal history provider knows is
inaccurate; or
[(B) Include criminal history information in
a criminal history report if the criminal
history information has not been updated to
reflect changes to the criminal history
information occurring 30 days or more before
the date the criminal history report is
provided.
[SEC. 203. FILING A COMPLAINT WITH THE OFFICE OF HUMAN RIGHTS;
EXCLUSIVE REMEDY.
[(a) A person claiming to be aggrieved by a violation of this
title may file an administrative complaint with the Office of
Human Rights within one year after the unlawful discriminatory
act, or discovery thereof, in accordance with the procedures
set forth in Title III of the Human Rights Act of 1977,
effective December 13, 1977 (D.C. Law 2-38; D.C. Official Code
Sec. 2-1403.01 et seq.).
[(b) The administrative remedies in subsection (a) of this
section are exclusive. A person claiming to be aggrieved by a
violation of this title shall not have a private cause of
action in any court based on a violation of this title.
[SEC. 204. PENALTIES.
[(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, if
the Office of Human Rights determines that there is probable
cause to believe that a violation of this title has occurred,
it shall certify the complaint to the Commission on Human
Rights, which may impose the following penalties, of which half
shall be awarded to the complainant and half shall be awarded
to the District and deposited into the General Fund:
[(1) For a first violation, a fine of up to $1,000;
and
[(2) For a second or subsequent violation, a fine of
up to $5,000.
[(b) For any violation of this title that occurs within 6
months after the applicability date of the Second Chance
Amendment Act of 2022, passed on 2nd reading on December 20,
2022 (Enrolled version of Bill 24-63), the Commission on Human
Rights shall issue warnings and orders to correct instead of
imposing a penalty pursuant to subsection (a) of this section.
[TITLE III--APPLICABILITY; FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT; EFFECTIVE DATE
[SEC. 301. APPLICABILITY.
[(a) This act shall apply upon the date of inclusion of its
fiscal effect in an approved budget and financial plan.
[(b) The Chief Financial Officer shall certify the date of
the inclusion of the fiscal effect in an approved budget and
financial plan, and provide notice to the Budget Director of
the Council of the certification.
[(c)(1) The Budget Director shall cause the notice of the
certification to be published in the District of Columbia
Register.
[(2) The date of publication of the notice of the
certification shall not affect the applicability of
this act.
[SEC. 302. FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
[The Council adopts the fiscal impact statement in the
committee report as the fiscal impact statement required by
section 4a of the General Legislative Procedures Act of 1975,
approved October 16, 2006 (120 Stat. 2038; D.C. Official Code
Sec. 1-301.47a).
[SEC. 303. EFFECTIVE DATE.
[This act shall take effect following approval by the Mayor
(or in the event of veto by the Mayor, action by the Council to
override the veto), a 30-day period of congressional review as
provided in section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Home
Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C.
Official Code Sec. 1-206.02(c)(1)), and publication in the
District of Columbia Register.]
----------
INCARCERATION REDUCTION AMENDMENT ACT OF 2016
[TITLE III--INCARCERATION REDUCTION
[SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.
[This title may be cited as the ``Incarceration Reduction
Amendment Act of 2016''.
[Sec. 302. Section 101(a) of the attorney general for the
district of columbia clarification and elected term amendment
act of 2010, effective may 27, 2010 (d.c. law 18-160; d.c.
official code Sec. 1-301.81(a)), is amended by adding a new
paragraph (3) to read as follows:
[``(3) By October 1, 2018, the Attorney General shall
develop a pilot program, in collaboration with
community partners, to provide victim-offender
mediation as an alternative to the prosecution of
juveniles in cases deemed appropriate by the Attorney
General; provided, that participation in the mediation
pilot program established pursuant to this paragraph
shall be voluntary for both the victim and the
offender.''.
[Sec. 303. Section 386 of the revised statutes of the
district of columbia (d.c. official code Sec. 5-113.01), is
amended as follows:
[(a) Designate the existing text as subsection (a).
[(b) A new subsection (b) is added to read as follows:
[``(b) The Metropolitan Police force shall cooperate with the
Criminal Justice Coordinating Council by sharing records to the
extent otherwise permissible under the law for the purpose of
preparing the report described in section 1505(b-3) of the
Criminal Justice Coordinating Council for the District of
Columbia Establishment Act of 2001, effective October 3, 2001
(D.C. Law 14-28; D.C. Official Code Sec. 22-4234(b-3)).''.
[Sec. 304. Of the criminal justice coordinating council for
the district of columbia establishment act of 2001, effective
october 3, 2001 (d.c. law 14-28; d.c. official code Sec. 22-
4234), is amended by adding new subsections (b-2) and (b-3) to
read as follows:
[(a) New subsections (b-2) and (b-3) are added to read as
follows:
[``(b-2) By October 1, 2018, and every 2 years thereafter,
the CJCC shall conduct a voluntary survey of individuals under
21 years of age currently committed to the Department of Youth
Rehabilitation Services or incarcerated at the Department of
Corrections on their perspective on the causes of youth crime
and the prevalence of adverse childhood experiences, such as
housing instability, childhood abuse, family instability,
substance abuse, mental illness, family criminal involvement,
or other factors deemed relevant by the CJCC.
[``(b-3) On October 1, 2018, and every 2 years thereafter,
the CJCC shall submit a report to the Mayor and the Council
containing an analysis of the root causes of youth crime and
the prevalence of adverse childhood experiences among justice-
involved youth, such as housing instability, childhood abuse,
family instability, substance abuse, mental illness, family
criminal involvement, or other factors deemed relevant by the
CJCC that incorporates the results of the survey conducted
pursuant to subsection (b-2) of this section.''.
[Sec. 305. Section 2(b) of an act to create a department of
corrections in the district of columbia, approved june 27, 1946
(60 stat. 320; d.c. official code Sec. 24-211.02(b)), is
amended as follows:
[(a) Paragraph (4) is amended by striking the phrase ``;
and'' and inserting a semicolon in its place.
[(b) Paragraph (5) is amended by striking the period and
inserting the phrase ``; and'' in its place.
[(c) A new paragraph (9) is added to read as follows:
[``(9) Cooperating with the Criminal Justice
Coordinating Council by sharing data and allowing
access to individuals under 21 years of age to the
extent otherwise permissible under the law for the
purpose of preparing the report described in section
1505(b-3) of the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council
for the District of Columbia Establishment Act of 2001,
effective October 3, 2001 (D.C. Law 14-28; D.C.
Official Code Sec. 22-4234(b-3)).''.
[Sec. 306. An act to establish a board of indeterminate
sentence and parole for the district of columbia and to
determine its functions, and for other purposes, approved july
15, 1932 (47 stat. 697; d.c. official code Sec. 24-403 et
seq.), is amended as follows:
[(a) Section 3a (D.C. Official Code Sec. 24-403.01) is
amended as follows:
[(1) Subsection (c) is amended to read as follows:
[``(c)(1) Except as provided under paragraph (2) of this
subsection, a sentence under this section of imprisonment, or
of commitment pursuant to section 4 of the Youth Rehabilitation
Amendment Act of 1985, effective December 7, 1985 (D.C. Law 6-
69; D.C. Official Code Sec. 24-903), shall be for a definite
term, which shall not exceed the maximum term allowed by law or
be less than any minimum term required by law.
[``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the
person committed the offense for which he or she is being
sentenced under this section while under 18 years of age:
[``(A) The court may issue a sentence less than the
minimum term otherwise required by law; and
[``(B) The court shall not impose a sentence of life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole or
release.''.
[(2) A new subsection (c-1) is added to read as follows:
[``(c-1) A person sentenced under this section to
imprisonment, or to commitment pursuant to section 4 of the
Youth Rehabilitation Amendment Act of 1985, effective December
7, 1985 (D.C. Law 6-69; D.C. Official Code Sec. 24-903), shall
serve the term of imprisonment or commitment specified in the
sentence, less any time credited toward service of the sentence
under subsection (d) of this section and subject to section 3c,
if applicable.''.
[(3) Subsection (e) is amended by striking the phrase
``person convicted of'' wherever it appears and inserting the
phrase ``person who was over 18 years of age at the time of the
offense and was convicted of'' in its place.
[(4) Subsection (f) is amended by striking the phrase
``person convicted of'' and inserting the phrase ``person who
was over 18 years of age at the time of the offense and was
convicted of'' in its place.
[(b) A new section 3c is added to read as follows:
[``SEC. 3C. MODIFICATION OF AN IMPOSED TERM OF IMPRISONMENT FOR
VIOLATIONS OF LAW COMMITTED BEFORE 18 YEARS OF AGE
[``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court
may reduce a term of imprisonment imposed upon a defendant for
an offense committed before the defendant's 18th birthday if:
[``(1)(A) The defendant was sentenced pursuant to
section 3 and has served at least 20 years in prison
and not yet become eligible under section 4 for release
on parole from the sentence imposed; or
[``(B) The defendant was sentenced pursuant to
section 3a or was committed pursuant to section 4 of
the Youth Rehabilitation Amendment Act of 1985,
effective December 7, 1985 (D.C. Law 6-69; D.C.
Official Code Sec. 24-903), and has served at least 20
years in prison; and
[``(2) The court finds, after considering the factors
set forth in subsection (c) of this section, that the
defendant is not a danger to the safety of any person
or the community and that the interests of justice
warrant a sentence modification.
[``(b)(1) A defendant convicted as an adult of an offense
committed before his or her 18th birthday may file an
application for a sentence modification under this section. The
application shall be in the form of a motion to reduce the
sentence. The application may include affidavits or other
written material. The application shall be filed with the
sentencing court and a copy shall be served on the United
States Attorney.
[``(2) The court may direct the parties to expand the record
by submitting additional written materials related to the
motion. The court shall hold a hearing on the motion at which
the defendant and the defendant's counsel shall be given an
opportunity to speak on the defendant's behalf. The court may
permit the parties to introduce evidence.
[``(3) The defendant shall be present at any hearing
conducted under this section unless the defendant waives the
right to be present. Any proceeding under this section may
occur by video teleconferencing and the requirement of a
defendant's presence is satisfied by participation in the video
teleconference.
[``(4) The court shall issue an opinion in writing stating
the reasons for granting or denying the application under this
section.
[``(c) The court, in determining whether to reduce a term of
imprisonment pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, shall
consider:
[``(1) The defendant's age at the time of the
offense;
[``(2) The nature of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant;
[``(3) Whether the defendant has substantially
complied with the rules of the institution to which he
or she has been confined and whether the defendant has
completed any educational, vocational, or other
program, where available;
[``(4) Any report or recommendation received from the
United States Attorney;
[``(5) Whether the defendant has demonstrated
maturity, rehabilitation, and a fitness to reenter
society sufficient to justify a sentence reduction;
[``(6) Any statement, provided orally or in writing,
provided pursuant to D.C. Official Code Sec. 23-1904
or 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3771 by a victim of the offense for
which the defendant is imprisoned, or by a family
member of the victim if the victim is deceased;
[``(7) Any reports of physical, mental, or
psychiatric examinations of the defendant conducted by
licensed health care professionals;
[``(8) The defendant's family and community
circumstances at the time of the offense, including any
history of abuse, trauma, or involvement in the child
welfare system;
[``(9) The extent of the defendant's role in the
offense and whether and to what extent an adult was
involved in the offense;
[``(10) The diminished culpability of juveniles as
compared to that of adults, and the hallmark features
of youth, including immaturity, impetuosity, and
failure to appreciate risks and consequences, which
counsel against sentencing them to a lifetime in
prison; and
[``(11) Any other information the court deems
relevant to its decision.
[``(d) If the court denies the defendant's 1st application
under this section, a court shall entertain a 2nd application
under this section no sooner than 5 years after the date that
the order on the initial application becomes final. If a
sentence has not been reduced after a 2nd application, a court
shall entertain a 3rd and final application under this section
no sooner than 5 years following the date that the order on the
2nd application becomes final. No court shall entertain a 4th
or successive application under this section.
[``(e) Any defendant whose sentence is reduced under this
section shall be resentenced pursuant to section 3, section 3a,
or section 4 of the Youth Rehabilitation Amendment Act of 1985,
effective December 7, 1985 (D.C. Law 6-69; D.C. Official Code
Sec. 24-903), as applicable.''.]
----------
CHAPTER 22 OF TITLE 50 OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICIAL CODE
* * * * * * *
Subchapter I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
PART A--TRAFFIC ACT, 1925
[Sec. 50-2209.01. Authorized; violations as moving violations;
evidence; definition
[(a) The Mayor is authorized to use an automated traffic
enforcement system to detect moving infractions. Violations
detected by an automated traffic enforcement system shall
constitute moving violations. Proof of an infraction may be
evidenced by information obtained through the use of an
automated traffic enforcement system. For the purposes of this
subchapter, the term ``automated traffic enforcement system''
means equipment that takes a film or digital camera-based
photograph which is linked with a violation detection system
that synchronizes the taking of a photograph with the
occurrence of a traffic infraction.
[(b) Recorded images taken by an automated traffic
enforcement system are prima facie evidence of an infraction
and may be submitted without authentication.
[(c) An individual's driver's license or privilege to operate
a motor vehicle in the District shall not be suspended for a
violation detected by an automated traffic enforcement system
for failure to:
[(1) Timely answer a notice of infraction;
[(2) Appear, without good cause, at a scheduled
hearing; or
[(3) Timely pay any civil fine or penalty.
[Sec. 50-2209.02. Liability for fines; notice of infraction; hearing
[(a) Absent an intervening criminal or fraudulent act, the
owner of a vehicle issued a notice of infraction shall be
liable for payment of the fine assessed for the infraction.
[(b) When a violation is detected by an automated traffic
enforcement system, the Mayor shall mail a summons and a notice
of infraction to the name and address of the registered owner
of the vehicle on file with the Department of Motor Vehicles or
the appropriate state motor vehicle agency. The notice shall
include the date, time, and location of the violation, the type
of violation detected, the license plate number, and state of
issuance of the vehicle detected, and a copy of the photo or
digitized image of the violation.
[(b-1) Not Funded.
[(c) An owner or operator who receives a citation may request
a hearing which shall be adjudicated pursuant to subchapter I
of Chapter 23 of this title.
[(d) The owner or operator of a vehicle shall not be presumed
liable for violations in the vehicle recorded by an automated
traffic enforcement system when yielding the right of way to an
emergency vehicle, when the vehicle or tags have been reported
stolen prior to the citation, when part of a funeral
procession, or at the direction of a law enforcement officer.
[Sec. 50-2209.03. Agreement with private entity to provide records and
services
[The Mayor may enter an agreement with a private entity to
obtain relevant records regarding registration information or
to perform tasks associated with the use of an automated
traffic enforcement system, including, but not limited to, the
operation, maintenance, administration or mailing of notices of
violations.
[Sec. 50-2209.04. Access to automated traffic enforcement and district-
owned camera photographs and video footage
[(a) If an automated traffic enforcement camera or other
District-owned camera captures a photograph or video footage of
a collision handled by the Metropolitan Police Department Major
Crash Unit, the Mayor shall:
[(1) Within 14 business days of the collision, inform
the person or persons involved in the collision of the
existence of the photograph or video footage;
[(2) Ensure the preservation of the photograph or
video footage for 6 months from the date the photograph
or video footage was created; and
[(3) Within 14 business days of the request of a
person involved in the collision, provide access to the
photograph or video footage; provided, that where the
photograph or video footage is evidence in a criminal
proceeding, access to the photograph or video footage
shall be handled through the existing discovery process
for criminal cases.
[(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter or
impair the rights of any person under subchapter II of Chapter
5 of Title 2.
[(c) The Mayor, pursuant to subchapter I of Chapter 5 of
Title 2, may issue rules to implement the provisions of this
section.
[(d) For the purposes of this section, the term ``District-
owned camera'' shall not include a body-worn camera.
[Sec. 50-2209.05. ATE reporting to council
[(a) Beginning January 1, 2021, the District Department of
Transportation, in consultation with the Department of Motor
Vehicles, shall report to the Council on a semi-annual basis
the following information:
[(1) The top 15 automated traffic enforcement
(``ATE'') locations by value of citations generated in
the District;
[(2) The breakdown of the jurisdictions where those
receiving ATE citations and with outstanding ATE
citation debt have their vehicles registered;
[(3) The locations where cameras have been added in
the last 6 months and the reasons why those locations
were chosen; and
[(4) The amount of ATE citations issued in total and
by location.]
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 50-2201.04e. Traffic control at intersections
[(a) DDOT shall erect signage prohibiting right turns when
facing a red traffic control signal at an intersection that:
[(1) Is within 400 feet of a playground;
[(2) Is within 400 feet of an elementary or middle
school or a high school;
[(3) Has a bike lane running through it;
[(4) Is within 400 feet of a recreation center;
[(5) Is within 400 feet of a library; or
[(6) Is within 400 feet of a Metrorail station
entrance.
[(c) Beginning January 1, 2025, a motor vehicle operator
shall not make a turn when facing a steady red traffic control
signal unless DDOT has installed signage, pursuant to
subsection (d) of this section, permitting a turn when facing a
steady red traffic control signal at that intersection.
[(d)(1) DDOT may install signage at any intersection allowing
motor vehicle operators to make a turn when facing a steady red
traffic control signal only if DDOT:
[(A) Determines that allowing a motor vehicle
operator to make a turn when facing a steady
red traffic control signal at the intersection
would improve safety at that intersection; and
[(B) Updates the information required by
subsection (f) of this section.
[(2) DDOT shall not use automobile delay, as
described by level of service or similar measures of
vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, as the basis
for the determination made under paragraph (1)(A) of
this subsection.
[(e) By January 1, 2025, DDOT shall undertake a public
education campaign on the provisions of this section.
[(f) DDOT shall maintain, update within 30 days after the
installation of signage permitting a turn on red, and post
publicly on its website:
[(1) A list of intersections where turns on red are
allowed;
[(2) DDOT's rationale pursuant to subsection
(d)(1)(A) of this section for each intersection listed
pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection; and
[(3) The date of the signage installation allowing
turns on red.]
* * * * * * *
MINORITY VIEWS
Committee Democrats strongly oppose H.R. 5242, which would
repeal two laws enacted by the District of Columbia (D.C.): the
Second Chance Amendment Act of 2022 and the Incarceration
Reduction Amendment Act of 2016. The bill is opposed by D.C.
Mayor Muriel Bowser, the entire D.C. Council, and D.C. Attorney
General Brian Schwalb.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Letter from District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser to Chairman
James Comer and Ranking Member Robert Garcia, House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform (Sept. 10, 2025); Letter from Council
of the District of Columbia to Chairman James Comer and Ranking Member
Robert Garcia, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
(Sept. 8, 2025); Letter from District of Columbia Attorney General
Brian Schwalb to Chairman James Comer and Ranking Member Robert Garcia,
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (Sept. 9, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of the D.C. Home Rule Act (HRA) is to ``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.''\2\ The
bill would undermine the purpose of the HRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Pub. L. No. 93-198 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Second Chance Amendment Act is a criminal record
sealing law. All 50 states and the federal government have
criminal record sealing laws, though the specifics vary.\3\
Twelve states have criminal record sealing laws that meet the
bipartisan Clean Slate Initiative's minimum criteria.\4\ Four
Republicans on the Committee are from states whose laws meet
that criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Collateral Consequences Resource Center, 50-State Comparison:
Expungement, Sealing & Other Record Relief (online at
www.ccresourcecenter.org/state-restoration-profiles/50-state-
comparisonjudicial-expungement-sealing-and-set-aside/) (accessed Sept.
20, 2025).
\4\The Clean Slate Initiative, Clean Slate in States (online at
www.cleanslateinitiative.org/states) (accessed Sept. 20, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A criminal record, including for a mere arrest, has
collateral consequences, such as making it more difficult to
get a job or housing. The Second Chance Amendment Act seals
certain criminal records from public view, but not from law
enforcement, the courts, or other eligible entities. Under the
Second Chance Amendment Act, the availability of criminal
record sealing depends on the type of crime, the type of
record, and, in the case of a conviction, the length of time
since the completion of a sentence.
For example, a conviction for certain felonies, such as 1st
degree murder, is not eligible for sealing. In the case of an
eligible felony, the court cannot order sealing earlier than
eight years after the completion of the sentence. In making
such determinations, the court is required to weigh the
interests of the individual in sealing the records, the
community's interest in furthering the individual's
rehabilitation and reintegration into society, and the
community's interest in retaining access to the records. The
court may also consider seven factors, ranging from the nature
of the crime to the individual's history and characteristics.
The Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act is a sentence
review law. Twenty-five states and the federal government have
such policies, though the specifics vary. Sentence review laws
are premised on, among other things, the evidence on brain
development by age, the deterrence effect of lengthy sentences,
and the age-crime curve.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Sara Cohbra and Becky Feldman, The Second Look Movement: An
Assessment of the Nation's Sentence Review Laws (Aug. 27, 2025) (online
at www.sentencingproject.org/reports/the-second-look-movement-a-review-
of-the-nations-sentence-review-laws/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act permits an
individual who is convicted of a crime committed before age 25
and has served at least 15 years in prison to petition the
court to reduce the term of imprisonment. To reduce the term,
the court, after considering enumerated factors, must find that
the individual is not a danger and that the interests of
justice warrant a reduction.
Instead of meddling in local D.C. matters, Congress should
pass the D.C. statehood bill.
Robert Garcia,
Ranking Member.