District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act of 2025
Floor Speech
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, 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.
Norton).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source