[House Report 119-131]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 119-131
======================================================================
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERAL IMMIGRATION COMPLIANCE ACT OF 2025
_______
June 3, 2025.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Comer, from the Oversight and Government Reform, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2056]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 2056) to require the District of
Columbia to comply with federal immigration laws, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Summary and Purpose of Legislation............................... 2
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 2
Section By Section Analysis...................................... 3
Legislative History.............................................. 3
Committee Consideration.......................................... 3
Roll Call Votes.................................................. 3
Explanation of Amendments........................................ 5
List of Related Committee Hearings............................... 5
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the
Committee...................................................... 5
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 5
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch..................... 5
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 6
Federal Advisory Committee Act Statement......................... 6
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement........................... 6
Earmark Identification........................................... 6
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 6
New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost
Estimate....................................................... 6
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 8
Minority Views................................................... 9
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia Federal
Immigration Compliance Act of 2025''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SERVING AS SANCTUARY
JURISDICTION.
(a) In General.--Except as provided under subsection (b), 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.
(b) Exception.--The District of Columbia is not in violation of
subsection (a) solely because it has a policy whereby its officials
will not share information regarding an individual who comes forward as
a victim or a witness to a criminal offense, or comply with a request
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 regarding an individual who comes forward as a victim
or a witness to a criminal offense.
SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION
H.R. 2056, the District of Columbia Federal Immigration
Compliance Act nullifies any statute, ordinance, policy, or
practice of the D.C. government which restricts any entity or
official from (1) providing citizenship or immigration status
of any individual to any Federal, state, or local governmental
entity or (2) complying with a lawful request by the Department
of Homeland Security under sections 236 (Apprehension and
detention of aliens) or 287 (Powers of immigration officers and
employees) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, including
complying with detainers or providing notification regarding
the release of an individual. The bill also provides a safe
harbor to protect individuals who come forward as the witness
to, or victim of, a crime.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The progressive D.C. Council has enacted multiple laws
prohibiting D.C. employees from cooperating with federal
immigration agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE). Most notably, D.C. has enacted the Sanctuary
Values Amendment Act of 2020 (D.C. Law 23-282) which prevents
D.C. from learning the immigration status of an individual in
custody and prevents the release of an individual for the
purpose of transferring them to a federal immigration agency.
These laws have effectively transformed the Nation's Capital
into a sanctuary city, releasing criminal illegal aliens
instead of turning them over to ICE for removal.
H.R. 2056 removes prohibitions on D.C. employees from
cooperating with ICE and providing the alienage status of
individuals in the District's custody. This bill also requires
D.C. to comply with lawful detainer requests from ICE and the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This will overturn
D.C.'s sanctuary city status, ensuring more cooperation between
the District and federal immigration agencies. H.R. 2056
includes an exception for individuals who come to law
enforcement as a witness or victim of a crime: identical
language was also included in the No Bailout for Sanctuary
Cities Act (H.R. 5717, 118th) which passed the House in
September 2024. This exception removes potential arguments by
open borders advocates that illegal aliens will otherwise be
deterred from coming forward to assist law enforcement as
witnesses to or victims of crime.
This bill vacates any D.C. laws and memoranda prohibiting
cooperation with ICE detainers, nullifying D.C.'s sanctuary
city status. This initiative is in line with the Trump
Administration's efforts to help keep the Nation's Capital city
safe.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title
The short title is the District of Columbia Federal
Immigration Compliance Act.
Section 2. Prohibition on District of Columbia serving as a sanctuary
jurisdiction
Subsection (a) (In General) nullifies existing
D.C. laws, ordinances, policies, or practices that prohibit
District employees from providing the immigration status of an
individual to the federal government and requires the District
to comply with all lawful detainer requests from the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) or Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE).
Subsection (b) (Exception) provides an exception
to subsection (a) for any individual whose contact with a D.C.
employee is solely as a victim or witness to a crime.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
H.R. 2056 was introduced on March 11, 2025, by
Representative Clay Higgins (R-LA). The following
Representative is a cosponsor of the bill: Barry Moore (R-AL).
The bill was referred to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform. The Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform held a related hearing on March 5, 2025. The Committee
considered H.R. 2056 at a business meeting on March 25, 2025,
and ordered the bill as amended favorably reported by a
recorded vote.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
On March 25, the Committee met in open session and ordered
the bill, H.R. 2056, favorably reported with an amendment in
the nature of a substitute, by a roll call vote of 23-21, a
quorum being present.
ROLL CALL VOTES
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the following roll call vote
occurred during the Committee's consideration of H.R. 2056:
A roll call vote was held on favorably reporting H.R. 2056.
The bill was agreed to in a recorded vote of 23-21.
EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS
During Committee consideration of the bill, Representative
James Comer (R KY), Chairman of the Committee, offered an
amendment in the nature of a substitute that made a certain
technical change to the bill. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute passed by voice vote.
LIST OF RELATED COMMITTEE HEARINGS
In accordance with House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(6), (1) The
following hearing was used to develop or consider H.R. 2056:
On March 5, 2025, the Committee held a hearing titled ``A
Hearing with Sanctuary City Mayors'' with The Honorable
Michelle Wu, Mayor, City of Boston; The Honorable Brandon
Johnson, Mayor, City of Chicago; The Honorable Mike Johnston,
Mayor, City of Denver; The Honorable Eric Adams, Mayor, City of
New York; David J. Bier (Minority Witness), Director of
Immigration Studies, CATO Institute.
(2) The following related hearing was held:
On March 5, 2025, the Committee held a hearing titled ``A
Hearing with Sanctuary City Mayors'' with The Honorable
Michelle Wu, Mayor, City of Boston; The Honorable Brandon
Johnson, Mayor, City of Chicago; The Honorable Mike Johnston,
Mayor, City of Denver; The Honorable Eric Adams, Mayor, City of
New York; David J. Bier (Minority Witness), Director of
Immigration Studies, CATO Institute.
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 nullify any statute,
ordinance, policy, or practice of the D.C. government which
restricts any entity or official from (1) providing citizenship
or immigration status of any individual to any Federal, state,
or local governmental entity or (2) complying with a lawful
request by the Department of Homeland Security under sections
236 (Apprehension and detention of aliens) or 287 (Powers of
immigration officers and employees) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, including complying with detainers or
notifying about the release of any individual. The bill also
provides a safe harbor to protect individuals who come forward
as the witness to, or as a victim of, a crime.
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(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and pursuant to clause
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the
Congressional Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows:
H.R. 2056 would amend federal law to specify that the
District of Colombia (D.C.) government must comply with
requests from federal immigration authorities to share
information and detain aliens (non-U.S. nationals). Under the
D.C. Official Code, the District does not cooperate with
federal immigration authorities without a judicial warrant.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2056 could increase the
number of aliens in government custody and the number of aliens
deported by making it easier for the federal government to
enforce U.S. immigration laws within the district. Any change
in that number would depend on many factors, including the
availability of detention space and decisions made by the
executive branch. Therefore, CBO estimates that any changes in
the size of the population based solely on enacting this bill
would be small.
Enacting H.R. 2056 would reduce direct spending because
aliens are eligible for certain federal benefits, such as
emergency Medicaid, if they otherwise meet the eligibility
requirements for those benefits. Because few people would be
affected by the bill, CBO estimates that those effects would
not be significant in any year and over the 2025-2035 period.
CBO estimates that the cost to implement the bill would not
be significant; any related spending would be subject to the
availability of appropriated funds.
H.R. 2056 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by
preempting local laws in the District of Columbia.
Specifically, the bill would preempt any D.C. statute,
ordinance, policy, or practice that limits cooperation with
federal immigration agencies. CBO estimates that the cost of
the mandate would not exceed the annual intergovernmental
threshold established in UMRA ($103 million in 2025, adjusted
annually for inflation).
The bill would not impose any private-sector mandates.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Jeremy Crimm
and Matthew Pickford (for federal costs) and Andrew Laughlin
(for mandates). The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel
Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director, Congressional Budget Office.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
The requirements of clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives do not apply to H.R. 2056.
MINORITY VIEWS
Committee Democrats strongly oppose H.R. 2056, which would
effectively nullify laws, policies, and practices duly enacted
by the District of Columbia (D.C.), because we strongly support
local D.C. self-government.
DENIAL OF DEMOCRACY IN D.C.
The principles of no taxation without representation and
consent of the governed helped launch the American Revolution
and are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. Yet, D.C.
residents, who pay all federal taxes, have no voting
representation in Congress, and Congress has plenary authority
over D.C.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Majority claims Congress has a constitutional duty to
legislate on local D.C. matters. That is false, and Republicans
legislate on local D.C. matters only when they think they can
score political points.
Despite giving Congress plenary authority over D.C., the
Framers expected Congress to establish a local government for
D.C.\2\ Indeed, Congress has established various forms of local
government for D.C. since 1802.\3\ The Supreme Court has held
that ``there is no constitutional barrier to the delegation by
Congress to the District of Columbia of full legislative
power.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\``[A] municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from
their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them.'' Library of
Congress, Federalist Nos. 41-50 (online at https://guides.loc.gov/
federalist-papers/text-41-50) (accessed May 28, 2025).
\3\Congressional Research Service, Governing the District of
Columbia: Overview and Timeline (Jan. 29, 2024) (online at
www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12577).
\4\District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., Inc., 346 U.S.
100, 109 (1953).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1973, Congress passed the D.C. Home Rule Act, which
established an elected chief executive (the D.C. Mayor) and an
elected legislature (the D.C. Council) for D.C.\5\ The purpose
of the D.C. Home Rule Act is to, among other things, ``grant to
the inhabitants of the District of Columbia powers of local
self-government'' and ``relieve Congress of the burden of
legislating upon essentially local District matters.''\6\ H.R.
2056 contravenes the purpose of the D.C. Home Rule Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Pub. L. No. 93-198 (1973).
\6\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC SAFETY
H.R. 2056 constitutes an unacceptable encroachment on
D.C.'s self-governance by mandating that local agencies
participate in federal immigration enforcement operations. Such
a mandate would undermine community trust and pose a serious
risk to public safety. Mayors, police chiefs, sheriffs, and
other local officials across the country have made clear that
the way to combat violent crime is to allow local police to
protect public safety in their own communities--not to spend
their limited time and resources rounding up and detaining
immigrants who pose no threat.\7\ Moreover, police departments
need all residents, especially the witnesses to, and the
victims of, crime, to feel safe cooperating with them. H.R.
2056 would make immigrants less willing to cooperate with the
D.C. police department. All people, regardless of immigration
status, deserve to feel and be safe in their communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Major Cities Chiefs Association, Immigration Policy (online at
www.majorcitieschiefs.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Revised-2017-
Immigration-Policy.pdf) (accessed May 28, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
We strongly oppose H.R. 2056 and any other effort to
undermine the will of D.C. residents and their locally elected
representatives. Instead of interfering in local D.C. matters,
Congress should grant D.C.'s statehood petition.
Stephen F. Lynch,
Acting Ranking Member.