[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 100 (Wednesday, June 11, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H2634-H2639]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERAL IMMIGRATION COMPLIANCE ACT OF 2025
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 489, I call up
the bill (H.R. 2056) to require the District of Columbia to comply with
federal immigration laws, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 489, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, printed in the bill, modified by the
amendment printed in House Report 119-151, is adopted and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 2056
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia Federal
Immigration Compliance Act of 2025''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SERVING AS
SANCTUARY JURISDICTION.
The District of Columbia may not have in effect a statute,
ordinance, policy, or practice that prohibits or restricts
any entity or official of the District government from--
(1) sending, receiving, maintaining, or exchanging with any
Federal, State, or local government entity information
regarding the citizenship or immigration status (lawful or
unlawful) of any individual; or
(2) complying with a request lawfully made by the
Department of Homeland Security under section 236 or 287 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226 and 1357)
to comply with a detainer for, or notify about the release
of, an individual.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or their
respective designees.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).
General Leave
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the measure under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
{time} 1430
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2056, the District of Columbia
Federal Immigration Compliance Act.
The House Oversight Committee has held multiple hearings on the
failings of the Biden-Harris administration to secure our borders and
protect our citizens. In March, the committee heard from sanctuary city
mayors, who offered carefully crafted, lawyerly statements defending
their decisions not to work with the Trump administration as it works
to remove criminal aliens as quickly as possible.
At the end of the day, illegal alien criminals who threaten our
communities have no right to be here in the first place. State and
local governments must work with the Department of Homeland Security to
share information on individuals they arrest. They must also honor
lawful detainers. When they do not, Congress must act.
H.R. 2056 ensures that the District of Columbia cooperates with
Federal immigration agencies, including ICE, to protect our citizens
and nullifies prior attempts by the District to make itself a sanctuary
city.
I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins) for his work on
this important topic, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 2056, which would effectively
nullify laws, policies, and practices duly enacted by the District of
Columbia because I strongly support the ability of the residents of the
District of Columbia to govern themselves on local matters.
This is one of two D.C. bills that the House is considering this week
to demonize immigrants. Let's be clear: The District of Columbia is in
full compliance with Federal law. It does not obstruct ICE from
carrying out its duties.
D.C., like many other jurisdictions, limits its cooperation with
Federal immigration agencies to what Federal law actually requires. Why
do jurisdictions limit such cooperation other than the fact that
immigration is a Federal responsibility? Let us ask the police chiefs
for an explanation.
The Major Cities Chiefs Association opposes such cooperation for four
reasons:
``Enforcement of routine civil immigration by police would undermine
the trust and cooperation with immigrant communities which are
essential elements of community-oriented policing.
``Courts have held that the lack of legal authority to enforce
Federal civil immigration statutes exposes police to liability for
unlawful arrest and detention.
``Local agencies do not possess adequate resources to enforce these
laws in addition to the added responsibility of homeland security.
``Immigration laws are very complex, and the training required to
understand them and to properly prosecute them significantly detracts
from the core mission of local police to create safe communities.''
Let's be clear again: D.C. is in full compliance with Federal law. It
does not obstruct ICE from carrying out its duties, and it is backed by
evidence demonstrating that limiting cooperation keeps people safer.
Counties with laws that do not honor extrajudicial civil detainers have
significantly lower levels of violent crime than counties that don't
have such laws.
Mayors, police chiefs, sheriffs, and local leaders across the country
have made clear that the way to combat violent crime is allowing local
police to do their job of ensuring public safety in their own
communities, not commandeering local police to spend limited time and
resources rounding up and detaining nonviolent immigrants who pose no
threat.
Forcing the District of Columbia to carry out the Federal
Government's immigration duties also discourages residents from coming
forward to share information with the police about violent crimes for
fear that they or someone close to them will be detained or deported.
This is simply bad policy and will hurt the residents of the District
of Columbia.
The House should reject H.R. 2056 and stop interfering in local D.C.
matters. Instead, it should pass the District of Columbia Local Funds
Act, and H.R. 51, Washington, D.C. Admission Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Higgins), the sponsor of the bill.
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, let's have a candid
conversation if we could, sir, with my colleague across the aisle about
what is happening here.
[[Page H2635]]
Congress and America, we need to clarify for the citizens watching,
Mr. Speaker, Congress has a unique authority, and therefore,
responsibility for our Nation's Capital as opposed to other
municipalities across the country. Why not Phoenix, New Orleans,
Atlanta, et cetera? It is because they are not the Nation's Capital,
that is why. It is because it is not reflected in the responsibilities
that are enumerated for Congress for the District of Columbia, our
Nation's Capital.
With the pendular swing of majority control that we observe in our
Nation, from Democratic majority to Republican majority, my Democratic
colleagues feel responsible to make changes when they have the
majority, as do we.
When we were under Democratic majority control in recent years, since
I have been in Congress, the Democrats supported and did not oppose
some policy and legislative decisions at the municipal level in our
Nation's Capital that we knew would injure our Nation's Capital in the
realm of law enforcement.
That is where we are. Republicans have majority control in the House,
the Senate, and the White House, so of course we are going to respond
to the threat that we face within our Nation's Capital toward law
enforcement.
This is my bill, and this is how simple it is: It requires the
District of Columbia to comply with Federal immigration law. What is
wrong with that, Mr. Speaker? My colleague stated two or three times in
his opening statement that the District of Columbia does not obstruct
Federal law enforcement. That is not true.
America has to read between the lines. When he says they do not
obstruct, it means they don't, like, physically stop ICE from executing
a warrant. What he is not saying, Mr. Speaker, is that the District of
Columbia does not comply with Federal immigration law enforcement
warrant detainers, which is the safest, most widely accepted means by
which a human being that is in the custody of one jurisdictional
authority is transferred to another jurisdictional authority safely and
within the parameters of the law for the benefit of the individual and
the community.
D.C. doesn't do that for Federal immigration detainers. If they have
somebody in custody, Mr. Speaker, for whatever purposes, and that guy
has a warrant for ICE, they know that there is a warrant for that man.
Under normal circumstances, the custody of that individual would be
transferred safely once the District of Columbia was finished with that
individual. They don't do that with ICE. They subject their communities
to dangerous circumstances and law enforcement to absolutely
unnecessary danger.
My bill just mandates that the District of Columbia is the one city
that Congress has authority over, and therefore, responsibility to be
involved with things like this.
We shouldn't have to have this law.
Why? Because the District of Columbia should be following the Federal
law in the first place. We shouldn't have to bring this to the floor.
We shouldn't have to engage in this debate. I shouldn't have to explain
these things. However, we are going to, by God, require that our
Nation's Capital comply with our Nation's Federal law.
I encourage my colleagues to take a deep breath, step back and say,
yes, our Nation's Capital will be subject to the very laws that this
body passes. I appreciate the chairman's advocacy for my bill, and I
encourage my colleagues to support it.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let's take up that challenge. Let's make sure the laws
that we have passed in this House apply and are complied with in
Washington, D.C.
The gentleman may forget, this isn't the first debate we have had
about Washington, D.C., or the District of Columbia. We have had this
debate through history ever since the Founders of this country created
the District. It is a special district in addition to being our
National Capital.
Most recently, in 1973, this Congress created the Washington, D.C.
Home Rule Act. I will explain to the gentleman what that requires. The
Home Rule Act in D.C. says because there is shared jurisdiction within
this District that the people of Washington, D.C., the residents here,
may govern their local affairs as they please. I emphasize: as they
please, for local affairs.
The performance of their local police force is an area within their
local control. That is number one. Let's enforce the laws that have
been passed in this House respective to the people of the District of
Columbia.
Number two. Violent crime, the special circumstances about keeping
Washington, D.C., safe. Violent crime in D.C. reached a 30-year low
this year, this past year, a 30-year low. Compare that to any city in
the country, and it is a favorable comparison.
The police department in Washington, D.C., is doing an amazing job,
and the political leadership of D.C. has stepped up. There were years
many years ago when there were deep and serious questions about the
leadership in Washington, D.C. They have improved dramatically over the
last few decades.
This year, violent crime in D.C. is down 22 percent compared to the
same period last year, and studies show that handling law enforcement
the way they have, with community policing and getting to know the
people in the neighborhoods, has been a key element. This is according
to the last five police chiefs in this city. That spans over about 50
years. This is what they say, that this is the way to keep the people
safe, work with the local community.
I know the gentleman is from law enforcement. I am just asking to
afford the same respect and deference to our local law enforcement
leaders here in this community, give them the benefit of the doubt of
how they provide safety in their own city. They know it best. They know
the people. They know the streets. They know the challenges.
It is a special place. There is a protest every couple of days, a
major one in this city, people for various causes marching through the
city take it over, and the local law enforcement has to be part of that
effort to keep those people safe so they can express their rights.
It is a special place, but I think we should give deference to the
local law enforcement community that they know how best to provide that
safety, especially with the record that they have, a 30-year low on
crime in this city, 22 percent less violent crime this year compared to
the same period last year.
The gentleman's argument was correct. He shouldn't have to bring a
bill up here to do this. He shouldn't have to interfere with local
control in this city. He shouldn't have to bring a bill up here to tell
the local people how to run their city when Congress has already, in
1973, given them that power in the District of Columbia Home Rule Act.
I shouldn't have to defend that right that has already been granted by
previous Congresses.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the Delegate
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this undemocratic, anti-
immigrant bill, which would nullify laws, policies, and practices
enacted by the locally elected District of Columbia Government. The
over 700,000 D.C. residents, a majority of whom are Black and Brown,
are capable and worthy of local self-government.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters, one from every
Member of D.C.'s locally elected legislature, the Council; and one from
D.C.'s locally elected Attorney General, Brian Schwalb, opposing this
bill.
Council of the District of Columbia,
Washington, DC, June 9, 2025.
Hon. Mike Johnson,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries: We write to
express our opposition to three pieces of legislation we
understand will be considered on the House floor this week.
All three bills would repeal provisions in laws that were
carefully and deliberately enacted by the Council for the
benefit of all District residents.
H.R. 2096 would repeal several efforts by the Council to
ensure that police officers who violate the law and
contravene public safety are appropriately disciplined. The
bill would strip the Chief of the Metropolitan Police
Department (MPD) of the authority to discipline officers who
violate the law or MPD policy. It would also limit the MPD
Chief's discretion to impose disciplinary penalties greater
than those recommended by the board investigating the
allegations made against an officer. Stripping MPD management
of its authority in this area would
[[Page H2636]]
greatly undermine both MPD and public safety. A 2022 D.C.
Auditor's report catalogued cases where MPD was barred from
firing officers who had committed sexual and domestic
violence, who were arrested for assorted criminal activity,
or who gave false statements, misused their firearms, or
slept on the job. H.R. 2096 would also restore a 90-day
statute of limitations for claims against police officers
that, in the past, was repeatedly used by officers seeking to
avoid accountability. Every MPD Chief for the past 15 years
has supported this reform because it empowers police
leadership--not a third-party board or arbitrator--to
determine the appropriate standards of conduct and discipline
for their officers. Congress should not substitute its
authority for that of local elected leaders and MPD Chiefs
who have examined these issues closely.
We support having a robust and strong police force and work
closely with MPD leadership to provide them with the tools
they need to make the city safe. Part of that effort includes
ensuring that the force can appropriately remove officers who
violate the law, MPD policies, and the public trust. When the
public trusts that MPD can effectively police its own,
residents are more likely to cooperate in investigations and
more likely to assist in prosecution, making the District
safer. H.R. 2096 would make it harder for law enforcement
leadership in the Nation's Capital to remove bad actors who
undermine that trust.
We also oppose H.R. 884, which would repeal a 2022 law
extending voting rights in local District elections to non-
citizen residents. Non-citizens enjoy similar voting rights
in 15 other jurisdictions, including San Francisco and
Oakland, California, Montpelier, Vermont, and a number of
jurisdictions in neighboring Maryland. It continues to be
unlawful for non-citizens to vote in federal elections in the
District. In fact, federal law has prohibited non-citizens
from voting in federal elections since 1996. Our local law
cannot and does not attempt to change that.
Finally, we oppose H.R. 2056, which attempts to negate
provisions in local District law governing how MPD and other
District agencies participate in federal immigration
enforcement efforts. This law has been on the books for 13
years and makes it clear that District officials must
cooperate with any court order directing that an individual
in District custody suspected of an immigration violation be
detained or transferred to federal custody. H.R. 2056 would
also eliminate rules governing information sharing between
the District and federal law enforcement on immigration
matters. In sum, the bill would scrap rules and practices
that are clear and familiar and replace them with nothing.
This will only cause confusion and uncertainty both for law
enforcement and those suspected of an immigration violation.
The Council is already considering a proposal from Mayor
Muriel Bowser to reconsider the District's laws and policies
in this area. We respectfully request that you allow us to do
that work.
Thank you for your consideration and your attention to
these important matters. We look forward to working with you
on our shared goals to advance the safety, security, and
prosperity of the District.
Sincerely,
Phil Mendelson,
Chairman, At-Large.
Anita Bonds,
Councilmember,
At-Large.
Robert C. White,
Councilmember,
At-Large.
Brooke Pinto,
Councilmember, Ward 2.
Kenyan R. McDuffie,
Chair Pro-Tempore, At-Large.
Christina Henderson,
Councilmember,
At-Large.
Brianne K. Nadeau,
Councilmember, Ward 1.
Matthew Frumin,
Councilmember, Ward 3.
Janeese Lewis George,
Councilmember, Ward 4.
Charles Allen,
Councilmember, Ward 6.
Zachary Parker,
Councilmember, Ward 5.
Wendell Felder,
Councilmember, Ward 7.
____
Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the
Attorney General
June 9, 2025.
Hon. Mike Johnson,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
House Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: I write
in opposition to three pieces of legislation before you
today, H.R. 2096, H.R. 884, and H.R. 2056. These bills seek
to repeal, explicitly or in effect, three local D.C. laws
pertaining to three inherently local issues, namely the
administration of local elections, the allocation of finite
local law enforcement resources, and the processes for
disciplining local police officers if they engage in
misconduct. The D.C. Council--whose members are elected by
and are directly accountable to District residents--passed
those laws after extensive debate and consideration. It would
be undemocratic and contrary to the principles of local
autonomy on which this country was founded for Members of
Congress, in whose election District residents have no say,
to vote to upend these purely local laws.
District residents should have the same right as all other
Americans to govern our local affairs. Just like your
constituents in Louisiana and New York, and indeed the
constituents in all of your colleagues' home states across
the country, the more than 700,000 residents who call the
District home know and care deeply about the local issues
that uniquely impact our lives. Our democratically elected
local officials work closely with policy experts, local law
enforcement, and other community stakeholders to pass laws
that are in the best interests of all Washingtonians.
Substituting the will of District voters and the duly elected
D.C. Council for that of federal politicians is, simply put,
un-democratic. Even if members of Congress might vote
differently on similar local issues for their own
jurisdictions, the residents of D.C. deserve to have our
local laws respected without interference from the federal
government.
I urge you and your colleagues to vote against advancing
these proposals.
Sincerely,
Brian L. Schwalb,
Attorney General for the District of Columbia.
{time} 1445
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, D.C. residents are treated as second-class
citizens by Congress. They are required to pay Federal taxes, serve on
Federal juries, and register with Selective Service in the same manner
as residents of the States. They have served in the military since the
Revolutionary War, which was fought to end taxation without
representation and to give consent to the governed. Yet, Congress has
denied them voting representation in Congress and full local self-
government over the past 200 years.
Last Congress, 100 bills and amendments were introduced to repeal or
block local D.C. laws and policies. This Congress, 28 such bills and
amendments have already been introduced, including bills to abolish the
locally elected D.C. Government.
Three months ago, Congress passed a bill that cut over $1 billion
from the local D.C. budget, which consists entirely of locally raised
revenue. While Congress has the authority to legislate on local D.C.
matters, it does not have a duty to do so.
In Federalist No. 43, James Madison said of D.C. residents: ``A
municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own
suffrages, will of course be allowed them.''
In 1953, the Supreme Court held that: ``There is no constitutional
barrier to the delegation by Congress to the District of Columbia of
full legislative power.''
The council has 13 members. If D.C. residents do not like how the
members vote, residents can vote them out of office or pass a ballot
measure. This is called democracy.
Congress has 535 voting Members. None are elected by D.C. residents.
If D.C. residents do not like how the Members vote on local D.C.
matters, residents cannot vote them out of office or pass a ballot
measure. That is the antithesis of democracy.
Congress has the authority to grant D.C. residents voting
representation in Congress and full local self-government. It simply
needs to pass H.R. 51, the D.C. statehood bill, which would make the
residential and commercial areas of D.C. a State.
The Admissions Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the
authority to admit new States. All 37 new States were admitted by an
act of Congress. The District Clause of the Constitution gives Congress
the authority to reduce the size of the Federal district, which it has
previously done.
The substance of H.R. 2056 is irrelevant since there is no
justification for Congress to legislate on local D.C. matters, but I
will briefly discuss it.
Consistent with Federal law, the position of the Major Cities Chiefs
Association and D.C.'s values, D.C. limits cooperation with Federal
immigration agencies. D.C. concluded that cooperating with Federal
immigration agencies would make D.C. less safe for all residents by
diverting police resources
[[Page H2637]]
and discouraging immigrants from interacting with the police department
and other government agencies. Many States, cities, and counties have
reached the same conclusion.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to respect the will of D.C. residents by
voting ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Timmons).
Mr. TIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
2056, the District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act.
I have to be honest. I am kind of disappointed in the debate right
now. My colleague from Massachusetts is talking about how we have
previously granted the authority to the District of Columbia to do X,
Y, and Z. He is correct, but with us granting power, there comes
responsibility.
My colleague from Washington, D.C., is talking about the home rule
and this and that. This city makes me sad. I mean, I have hope now that
President Trump is here that the D.C. Government is starting to do
things that they should have been doing all along.
What about Representative Cuellar, who was mugged, robbed at gunpoint
in a carjacking?
What about the Rand Paul staffer who was stabbed in a bar five blocks
from here? I don't go there anymore. I don't go there anymore because
it is not safe.
What about Brad Finstad, who got robbed at gunpoint?
What about the staffers who got robbed 6 months ago?
Justice Sotomayor's detail shot an 18-year-old multiple times because
he was trying to rob the Supreme Court Justice.
In what world are you living in that you think that the power that we
granted to the District of Columbia is being executed responsibly?
We are talking about something very simple: Abide by Federal
detainers. If the Federal Government says you have arrested an illegal
immigrant who has a criminal detainer, you have to follow the law.
We didn't give the billion dollars to the District of Columbia
because they need to understand that actions have consequences. When I
don't feel safe at night, when my constituents come here and I tell
them to be careful, when my commanding officer stays at a hotel three
blocks from here and I tell him not to walk to the baseball game, to
take an Uber, what world are you living in? This is unacceptable.
We will have law and order in this city. The President has said so
much. We are going to use every tool in our toolbox to make this
District what it should be.
A nation's capital in decline is a nation in decline. We are not a
nation in decline.
The city of D.C. needs to live up to its obligations to keep us safe.
Get the homeless people help. Letting them live in the streets is not
helping them. You are hurting them. Get them mental health counseling.
Get them a shower. Get them a job. Get them help. Letting them live
under bridges is not helping them. It is wrong. The fact that I have to
sit up here and tell you this makes me sad.
We are going to make this city safe. We are going to show the world
that we are not a nation in decline. We are going to not only Make
America Great Again, but we are going to make the United States Capital
great again.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, let's talk about crime in D.C. Let's talk
about crime in D.C., as the gentleman mentioned. Let's talk about that.
Let's talk about January 6. We had 1,500 people ransack the Capitol.
Let's talk about what happened to them in consequence. They were
rewarded. They were pardoned.
Yet, to this day, the Speaker of the House refuses to hang the plaque
honoring the over 150 police officers who defended the people in this
Chamber, who defended the Republicans.
I know all the Republicans didn't feel safe that day because I saw
them running from the crowd, running in fear, until the President told
them, no, that was just a tour of the Capitol. They all made excuses
for what happened that day. Not one of those people who ran out of the
Capitol for safety that day came back to say that they should be held
responsible. Now, all of those people have been pardoned.
Mr. Speaker, when they talk about crime in D.C., holding people
accountable, and feeling safe, do they think that day was making
democracy great again when the elected leaders had to hide, being
chased out of this Chamber doing the people's business?
Is this an example of how the Republicans are going to bring the rule
of law to D.C.? Give me a break. You have to be kidding me.
To this day, Officer Sicknick's family--there were three officers who
eventually died of causes related to the attack on the Capitol on
January 6. Those families would hope that the people who were saved
that day might be grateful. Those families lost their husbands,
fathers, and sons. They simply want to have their sacrifice and law
enforcement recognized by the people who were rescued.
I know there are a number of my colleagues on the other side who had
exemplary careers in law enforcement. They understand better than any
that when you have a son, daughter, husband, or wife who gives their
life in service of protecting the people in this Chamber, you would
hope for at least just a small gesture, a plaque to commemorate that
heroism and service to their country. That is not happening, and that
is a shame.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Georgia (Ms. Greene).
Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2056,
the District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act, introduced
by my good friend from Louisiana, Mr. Clay Higgins.
Bringing in and harboring illegal aliens is not only a crime under
Federal law, but it is also an absolute affront to the American people.
As a matter of fact, it already says in our law, under title 8,
section 1324, that there are criminal penalties for any person who
``knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come
to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law,
conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal,
harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including
any building or any means of transportation.''
This is already our law, but not here in Washington, D.C. Prohibiting
officials from cooperating with Federal immigration agencies and
preventing the release of an individual in custody for the purpose of
transferring them to a Federal immigration agency is shielding and
concealing illegal aliens, for my Democratic colleagues.
Sanctuary cities protect and defend these criminal illegal aliens,
and by definition, if they have broken our immigration laws, they are
criminals and must be held accountable.
Due to the Democrats' last 4 years of wide-open borders, this country
has experienced one of the greatest national security threats in our
entire history as a country. Democrats welcomed over 13 million people
from all over the world to come across our border and then made the
American people pay for them.
This was outrageous. These are people who came into our country,
invaded our country, raped our women and children, and murdered our own
people.
Then, the cartels traffic fentanyl across from China, which killed an
average of 300 people a day.
They set historic records by allowing the highest number of border
encounters ever recorded in a single day and a single month. It was
over 3 million illegals in fiscal year 2023, which was the highest ever
recorded in history.
Democrats set records. They sure do. They set records by supporting
criminals to invade our country.
{time} 1500
Mr. Speaker, instead of defending the American people, the Democrats
defend illegal alien criminals, gangs, and cartels at all costs.
Take, for example, their favorite MS-13 gang member, Kilmar Abrego
Garcia. This MS-13 gang member and wife beater was deported to El
Salvador for countless violations of our laws. Democrats labeled him as
a ``wrongfully deported Maryland man,'' oh, boo-hoo, and they flew to
El Salvador to speak with him.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).
[[Page H2638]]
Ms. GREENE. Mr. Speaker, Democrats couldn't wait to go on vacation to
go down and pretend like they cared about this MS-13 gang member as if
they really actually do.
He is now charged on multiple felony counts for human trafficking. As
a matter of fact, we are thrilled to bring him back and prosecute him
and make the Democrats continue to own him.
I would remind my colleagues he is their Maryland man.
According to the indictment, his transporting of illegals spans
decades and includes children and MS-13 gang members. He is alleged to
have participated in more than 100 trips. That is impressive. That is
the faith of the Democratic Party.
This is who they defend. This is who they fight for. The do not fight
for the American people, not their districts, not the people's hard-
earned tax dollars, and not disobeying the law. They fight for
illegals.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this bill, and I urge my
colleagues to pass H.R. 2056.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I might add that the gentleman that the
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene) was referencing is the same
gentleman that two members of the House Oversight Committee requested
authorization travel to go down to El Salvador and defend. I think that
she was very factual in everything she said, especially her criticism.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The title of this bill is misleading. The District of Columbia
already complies with Federal immigration law, including warrants and
orders related to immigrants issued by Article III courts.
It is ironic that the Republican leadership is cutting or denying the
ability of the District of Columbia to spend a billion dollars of the
money that they have raised within the District to meet their
obligations here in the city. Yet, while they are cutting their budget
by $1 billion, they are saying, even though Federal law doesn't require
cities to do all this stuff, we want them to do the Federal
Government's job, as well. That is the irony here.
Federal immigration law doesn't require the States or cities to
inquire about citizenship or immigration status or manage immigration
policy. They don't require cities to do that, especially a smaller
jurisdiction like Washington, D.C.
What my colleagues want to do is they want to shift the burden of the
Federal responsibilities onto the District of Columbia and their
political leadership, at the same time when they are cutting $1 billion
of the budget from Washington, D.C. It is adding insult to injury.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill because I strongly support D.C. home
rule. For this reason and at the appropriate time, I will offer a
motion to recommit this bill back to committee.
If House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an
important amendment to this bill. My amendment would have been the text
of S. 1077, the District of Columbia Local Funds Act. I would have
tried to put that $1 billion back into their own budget.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record immediately prior to the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I must note that it has been nearly 3 months
since the Senate passed the bipartisan District of Columbia Local Funds
Act, which would undo the $1 billion cut to the local D.C. budget in
the House Republican-drafted fiscal year bill.
The Republican-led Senate understood immediately the cut's harms and
passed the District of Columbia Local Funds Act within 4 hours of its
introduction by the Republican Senator, Susan Collins, the chair on the
Committee on Appropriations.
The local D.C. budget consists entirely of revenue raised by D.C. It
is raised by the District of Columbia, which is why the Congressional
Budget Office concluded that the District of Columbia Local Funds Act
would have zero effect on the Federal budget.
For the prior two decades, Congress had allowed the District of
Columbia to spend under its current local budget for the duration of
every continuing resolution. However, the fiscal year 2025 full-year
continuing resolution forced D.C. to revert to its fiscal year 2024
local budget.
It did so halfway through the fiscal year. In doing so, the
continuing resolution sabotaged the D.C. local budget. There was no
time to respond.
On March 28, President Trump called on the House to pass the District
of Columbia Local Funds Act immediately. Last month, Speaker Johnson
said the House had been too busy to act on the District of Columbia
Local Funds Act, while it worked on the reconciliation bill. The House
somehow found time to rename the Gulf of Mexico.
The House passed the reconciliation bill on May 22. The House has
found time this week to take up three bills to overturn the ability of
the people of Washington, D.C., to govern themselves. The House is now
out of excuses on the District of Columbia Local Funds Act.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the motion
to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, President Trump's electoral mandate includes his promise
to the American people that Republicans would resolve the criminal
illegal alien crisis across our Nation.
This bill is a necessary step in ensuring our Nation's Capital is an
ally, not an opponent, in the fight to end this crisis.
Specifically, H.R. 2056 represents an important step in codifying
President Trump's executive order on making the District of Columbia
safe and beautiful by directly supporting the directive for enhanced
coordination between the Federal Government and law enforcement
regarding illegal aliens.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage each of my colleagues to support this
critical legislation sponsored by Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 489, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Lynch of Massachusetts moves to recommit the bill H.R.
2056 to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Lynch is as follows:
Mr. Lynch moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2056 to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith
with the following amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia Local
Funds Act, 2025''.
SEC. 2. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LOCAL FUNDS.
Local funds are appropriated for the District of Columbia
for the current fiscal year out of the General Fund of the
District of Columbia (``General Fund'') for programs and
activities set forth in the Fiscal Year 2025 Local Budget Act
of 2024 (D.C. Law 25-218) and at rates set forth under such
Act, as amended as of the date of enactment of this Act:
Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
except as provided in section 450A of the District of
Columbia Home Rule Act (section 1-204.50a, D.C. Official
Code), sections 816 and 817 of the Financial Services and
General Government Appropriations Act, 2009 (secs. 47-369.01
and 47-369.02, D.C. Official Code), and provisions of this
Act, the total amount appropriated in this Act for operating
expenses for the District of Columbia for fiscal year 2025 by
this section shall not exceed the estimates included in the
Fiscal Year 2025 Local Budget Act of 2024, as amended as of
the date of enactment of this Act or the sum of the total
revenues of the District of Columbia for such fiscal year:
Provided further, That the amount appropriated may be
increased by proceeds of one-time transactions, which are
expended for emergency or unanticipated operating or capital
needs: Provided further,
[[Page H2639]]
That such increases shall be approved by enactment of local
District law and shall comply with all reserve requirements
contained in the District of Columbia Home Rule Act:
Provided further, That the Chief Financial Officer of the
District of Columbia shall take such steps as are necessary
to assure that the District of Columbia meets these
requirements, including the apportioning by the Chief
Financial Officer of the appropriations and funds made
available to the District during fiscal year 2025, except
that the Chief Financial Officer may not reprogram for
operating expenses any funds derived from bonds, notes, or
other obligations issued for capital projects.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________