During a House Oversight Committee hearing, Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA) introduced H.R.2056, entitled, the ‘District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act,’ which would require the District of Columbia to comply with federal immigration laws.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00H.R. 2056, a bill to require the District of Columbia to comply with federal immigration laws.
00:07Without objection, the bill should be considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
00:10Without objection, it's ordered.
00:12The chair now recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
00:15The clerk will please designate the amendment.
00:17An amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2056 is offered by Mr. Comer of Kentucky.
00:21Without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the substitute will be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment.
00:26I now recognize the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Higgins, for his opening statement.
00:32Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:33We recently have had extensive hearings regarding the negative impact of sanctuary city policies.
00:41The District of Columbia, our nation's capital, is of unique significance to the entire nation
00:51and should reflect the best policies of enforcement of local, state, and federal law
00:58and the immigration policies and laws of the United States.
01:04The reality is, however, Mr. Chairman, is that the District of Columbia does not reflect
01:12those law enforcement traditions and the professional understandings and agreements
01:22between law enforcement authorities across the country at the local, state, and federal level,
01:31wherein cooperation is the standard norm.
01:36The sanctuary city policies removes those cities from the historically very effective operations
01:48of law enforcement, wherein a jurisdictional authority that has possession of an offender,
02:03if there's a warrant for that offender that's been issued and is legitimate
02:08and has been communicated from another jurisdictional authority,
02:13then there's a cooperative effort across law enforcement.
02:16Sanctuary cities don't do that.
02:18So my bill enforces the District of Columbia into compliance with federal law.
02:26It nullifies any statute, ordinance, policy, or practice of the D.C. government,
02:32which restricts any entity or official from providing citizenship or immigration status
02:39to federal, state, and local law enforcement,
02:42or from complying with a lawful request by the Department of Homeland Security
02:48under Sections 236 and 287
02:51that regards the apprehension and detention of aliens
02:55and the powers of immigration officers and employees
02:58is all under the Immigration and Nationality Act,
03:03including complying with detainers or notifying at the point of release of an individual,
03:11wherefore that release will be directly to the security and control of DHS
03:20if a proper detainer has been noticed.
03:24The bill also provides safe harbor for individuals who come forward as a witness to
03:30or as a victim of a crime,
03:33wherein specifically in the legislation, Mr. Chairman,
03:37any human being that is witness to or victim of a crime
03:44would not be subject to further enforcement
03:49if it's specifically under this law.
03:52Like this, D.C. would not be considered not in compliance with this law
03:59if they're protecting the identity of a victim
04:02or a witness to a crime in an ongoing investigation.
04:05So, in summary, Mr. Chairman,
04:10this bill will be opposed by our colleagues across the aisle, no doubt,
04:16but it simply brings the nation's capital
04:20into compliance with the nation's laws
04:24and with the standards by which law enforcement
04:28at the local, state, and federal level
04:30have a longstanding relationship of cooperation.
04:34It forces our nation's capital
04:38to be in compliance with those standards of norm.
04:44Mr. Chairman, I thank you
04:46for the consideration of this bill and today's markup.
04:50I urge you to support on both sides of the aisle,
04:53and I yield.
04:55Gentleman yields back.
04:56Chair recognizes the ranking member for his opening statement.
04:58Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
05:01Before I discuss my opposition,
05:04to this bill, which my friend anticipated,
05:07I must ask,
05:08are House Republicans trying to sabotage
05:11the operations and finances of the District of Columbia,
05:16and to what end?
05:17The recently enacted continuing resolution
05:20cut D.C.'s local budget by more than a billion dollars.
05:25If that stands,
05:27D.C. will likely have to lay off first responders,
05:31police, fire, teachers.
05:35And Fitch ratings placed D.C.
05:37because of no action on their own
05:39on a rating watch negative.
05:42Every CR for the last two decades
05:45contained a provision that allowed D.C.
05:48to spend under its current local budget
05:51during the CR.
05:52House Republicans admitted that this year.
05:56Let's be clear
05:57about the absurdity of this situation.
06:00D.C.'s local budget
06:02consists of local funds,
06:04not federal.
06:06D.C. raised its own fiscal
06:082025 money.
06:10That money is in D.C.'s bank account.
06:14D.C. has been spending that money
06:15for six months,
06:16and now Congress has ordered D.C.
06:18to abandon its strategic priorities
06:21and investment opportunities.
06:24I served for 14 years
06:26on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors
06:28just across the river in Virginia,
06:31including five years as chairman,
06:33like being mayor.
06:34I cannot imagine
06:35running a local government
06:37subject to the whims
06:39of a dysfunctional Congress.
06:41There's been a bipartisan agreement
06:43on this dais.
06:44We want D.C. to be safe and prosperous.
06:47The Senate passed a standalone bill
06:49sponsored by a Republican member
06:51to fix treatment of D.C. in the CR.
06:54That bill is within
06:55this committee's jurisdiction.
06:57I urge our Republican majority
06:59on the committee
06:59to work with Republican leadership
07:01to bring that bill up immediately.
07:04Now let me turn to the bill
07:05before us,
07:06which I strongly oppose.
07:08D.C. should be free
07:09to govern itself.
07:10That my friend from Louisiana
07:12has no more business
07:14telling them how to run their business
07:16than I do from Fairfax, Virginia.
07:18The bill nullifies D.C. laws
07:20and policies
07:22that, like those of other jurisdictions,
07:24are in full compliance
07:26with federal law.
07:27They do not obstruct ICE
07:29from carrying out its duties,
07:30and they are backed by evidence
07:32demonstrating
07:33that they keep people safer.
07:35Counties with laws
07:36that do not honor
07:37extraditional warrantless
07:39civil detainers
07:40had significant lower levels
07:42of violent crime
07:43than counties
07:44that do not have such laws.
07:47Mayors, police chiefs,
07:49sheriffs, local leaders
07:51have made clear
07:51that the way to combat violent crime
07:54is allowing local police
07:55to do their job
07:56of ensuring public safety
07:58in their own communities,
08:00not commandeering them
08:02to spend limited time
08:03and resources
08:04rounding up
08:05and detaining
08:06nonviolent immigrants
08:08who pose no threat.
08:10The committee has a hearing
08:11on this issue.
08:12That hearing accomplished
08:13none of the majority's objectives,
08:16which were primarily
08:17to demagogue immigration
08:18enforcement policies
08:20in large urban areas.
08:23Instead, that hearing
08:24showcased American cities
08:25that were focused
08:26on public safety
08:27and complying
08:28with federal immigration law
08:29without getting dragged
08:31into the costly business
08:32of the Trump administration's
08:34cruel, unconstitutional
08:36and inhumane immigration policies.
08:40That hearing failed
08:41to force the Trump administration
08:42immigration enforcement operations
08:44down the throats
08:45of American cities,
08:47so now Republicans
08:48are turning their eyes
08:49to a vulnerable Washington, D.C.,
08:52where they are hoping
08:53to press the hobnail boot
08:55of the federal government
08:56that they control
08:57to the throat
08:58of the nation's capital.
09:00It's a shameless moment,
09:02and it's one I cannot support,
09:04and I oppose this bill.
09:06I yield back.
09:08Tillman yields back.
09:09Chair, recognize Mr. Biggs.
09:11Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
09:12I support Mr. Higgins' bill
09:14and the ANS offered
09:17by the Chairman.
09:19I'm going to focus
09:20just on two brief aspects
09:22of this.
09:23And Section 1,
09:25excuse me, Section 2,
09:27subparagraph A2,
09:28requires compliance
09:31with a request lawfully made.
09:34That should not cause anyone heartburn.
09:38It is a lawful,
09:39lawfully made request
09:40pursuant to 236
09:42or Section 287
09:43of the INA.
09:45And then it's a new
09:50or a diversionary tactic
09:53that we're seeing now,
09:54but what has happened here
09:57that Mr. Higgins has done
09:58that I think addresses
10:00and should assuage
10:01much of what my friends
10:04across the aisle
10:05have traditionally raised
10:07is he has provided
10:08a safe harbor
10:10for those who are witnesses
10:12or victims
10:12who wish to come forward
10:14so that there can be
10:15no other action
10:16against them.
10:18So with that,
10:20I think Mr. Higgins' bill
10:22is strikingly good,
10:25necessary,
10:27and appropriate
10:27at this time.
10:28And I'll yield
10:29to the gentleman
10:29from Louisiana,
10:30Mr. Higgins.
10:31I thank the gentleman
10:32from Arizona
10:33and I respect
10:34the ranking member.
10:35It may surprise
10:36the nation
10:37and know that he
10:38and I have
10:39a very friendly
10:40and respectful relationship.
10:42and I respectfully
10:44would remind
10:47the gentleman
10:47that the District
10:49of Columbia
10:50is indeed unique
10:51amongst all municipalities
10:53in the country
10:54for us,
10:55our nation's capital.
10:58And Congress
10:59does indeed
11:00have authority
11:00within the decision-making
11:03process
11:04of the District
11:05of Columbia.
11:06And we have ceded
11:07some of that
11:08to be sure
11:09for local affairs.
11:10that the interaction
11:12with federal law enforcement
11:13as it relates
11:14specifically,
11:16in this case,
11:17to the removal
11:18of illegal aliens,
11:19this is certainly
11:20a federal consideration.
11:23And therefore,
11:24our nation's capital
11:25should be in compliance
11:26with federal laws
11:28and should be
11:30exemplary therein.
11:31However,
11:32that's not the case.
11:33And the gentleman knows
11:35that laws are written,
11:36statutes are written,
11:37at the local,
11:38state,
11:38and federal level
11:39with words like
11:40may and shall
11:42for a particular purpose.
11:45This just removes discretion.
11:47This shows the severity
11:49of the intent
11:52of the statute
11:54as it was written.
11:56And under the code
11:57of the District of Columbia,
11:5924-2-11-07,
12:01the prohibition
12:02on cooperation
12:03with federal immigration agencies,
12:05the District of Columbia
12:07shall not
12:08hold an individual
12:10after they've been
12:11otherwise released
12:12to comply with
12:13an ICE detainer request.
12:16Provide any facility
12:17or equipment
12:18to assist ICE
12:19with a search
12:20or inquiry
12:21about an individual
12:22in D.C. custody.
12:24Permit ICE
12:25to interview a suspect
12:26in D.C. custody
12:27unless compelled
12:29by court order.
12:30Provide ICE information
12:32about an individual's
12:33release date
12:34or location
12:34or any information
12:36about why they were detained.
12:38Grant access
12:39to federal immigration authorities
12:41to District of Columbia
12:43detention facilities
12:44or inquire
12:46into the immigration status
12:47of an individual
12:48in custody.
12:50D.C. laws go on
12:52with similar
12:53sanctuary city policies
12:55prefaced by
12:56shall not
12:58or will
12:59not may
13:00or can
13:02no discretion there.
13:05These laws
13:05were written
13:06with severity
13:07leaning towards
13:09sanctuary city policies
13:11and our nation's
13:12capital
13:13should not reflect
13:14a refusal
13:16in fact
13:17a mandated
13:18denial
13:18of compliance
13:20with federal
13:21immigration law.
13:22I thank the gentleman
13:24for yielding me
13:25some of his time
13:26and I yield back
13:27to the gentleman
13:27from Arizona.
13:29I thank the gentleman
13:30I yield Mr. Chairman.
13:32Gentleman yield
13:32any other members
13:34chair recognizes
13:35Ms. Norton
13:36from Washington D.C.
13:37Thank you Mr. Chair.
13:39I strongly oppose
13:40this undemocratic
13:41anti-immigrant bill
13:43which would nullify
13:45duly enacted laws
13:46policies
13:47and practices
13:48of the District of Columbia.
13:50Before I address
13:51the details
13:52of this bill
13:52I want to discuss
13:53democracy
13:54and the lack
13:55of democracy
13:55in D.C.
13:57The Revolutionary War
13:59was fought
13:59to give consent
14:00to the government
14:01and to end taxation
14:02without representation.
14:04Yet more than
14:05700,000 D.C. residents
14:07are denied
14:07voting representation
14:08in Congress
14:09and full
14:11local
14:12self
14:12government
14:14even though
14:15D.C. pays
14:16more federal taxes
14:17per capita
14:17than any state
14:18and more total
14:20federal taxes
14:21than 19 states.
14:23Last Congress
14:25Republicans
14:26introduced
14:26more than
14:27100 bills
14:28and amendments
14:28to repeal
14:29or block
14:30D.C. laws
14:31and policies.
14:32This Congress
14:33Republicans
14:34have already
14:35introduced
14:3517 such bills
14:37and amendments.
14:39Two weeks ago
14:40Congress
14:41passed a bill
14:41drafted by Republicans
14:43that cut
14:43more than
14:441 billion dollars
14:46from the D.C.
14:47local budget
14:47which consists
14:49entirely
14:49of locally
14:50raised revenue.
14:51although Congress
14:52has plenary
14:53authority
14:54over D.C.
14:56legislating
14:56on D.C. matters
14:57is a choice.
14:59In 1953
15:00the Supreme Court
15:02held that
15:02there
15:03held that
15:04quote
15:04there is no
15:05constitutional barrier
15:06to delegation
15:08by Congress
15:08to the District
15:09of Columbia
15:10of full legislative
15:11power
15:12end quote.
15:13D.C. has a
15:14local legislature
15:15the members
15:16are elected
15:17by D.C. residents
15:18if D.C. residents
15:20do not like
15:21how the members
15:21vote
15:22they can vote
15:23them out of office
15:24that is called
15:25democracy.
15:26The voting
15:27members of Congress
15:27are elected
15:28by residents
15:29of states.
15:31If D.C. residents
15:32do not like
15:33how members
15:34vote on D.C.
15:35local matters
15:36they cannot
15:37vote them
15:37out of office.
15:39That is the
15:39antithesis
15:40of democracy.
15:41Congress
15:42has the authority
15:43to grant
15:43D.C. residents
15:44full
15:45democratic rights.
15:47It simply
15:47needs
15:48to pass
15:48my D.C.
15:49Washington
15:50D.C.
15:50admission act
15:51which would
15:52make
15:53the residential
15:54and commercial
15:54areas of D.C.
15:56a state.
15:57The merits
15:58of D.C.
15:58local laws
15:59and H.R.
16:002056
16:01are irrelevant
16:03since there
16:05is never
16:06justification
16:06for Congress
16:08interfering
16:08in D.C.
16:09local matters
16:10but I will
16:11briefly discuss
16:12them
16:12consistent
16:13with federal
16:14law D.C.
16:15like states
16:15cities
16:16and counties
16:17across the
16:18country
16:18has passed
16:19laws
16:19to support
16:21and protect
16:22the safety
16:24of all its
16:25residents
16:25regardless
16:26of immigration
16:26status.
16:28In passing
16:28such laws
16:29D.C.
16:30followed its
16:31values
16:31and the
16:32evidence
16:32on the
16:33benefits
16:34of such
16:34laws
16:35for the
16:35entire
16:36city.
16:37House R
16:372056
16:39contains
16:40an exception
16:41for victims
16:41and witnesses
16:43to crimes.
16:47The exception
16:48is a fig leaf.
16:50If enacted
16:51the bill
16:51would deter
16:52immigrants
16:53from seeking
16:56assistance
16:57from or
16:58cooperating
16:59with the
17:01D.C.
17:01government
17:01including the
17:02police department.
17:04I urge
17:04members to
17:05vote no
17:06on this
17:07bill.
17:08I ask my
17:08friend to
17:09yield.
17:11I thank
17:15my friend.
17:16I just
17:17want to say
17:18local control
17:18is best.
17:20And I
17:21say to my
17:23friend from
17:23Louisiana
17:24and he is
17:24my friend
17:25I don't
17:26think Baton
17:27Rouge would
17:28like Congress
17:28telling it
17:29how to do
17:30its policing
17:31or its
17:33fire services
17:34or other
17:35municipal
17:36services
17:36provided.
17:37Neither
17:38would my
17:38jurisdiction.
17:40Neither
17:40does D.C.
17:41which is
17:41700,000
17:43people.
17:44We either
17:44believe in the
17:45principle of
17:46local control
17:46or we don't.
17:47Even when we
17:48disagree with
17:49decisions they
17:49make.
17:50God knows I
17:50disagreed with
17:51decisions made
17:52in D.C.
17:53But I've never
17:54tried to
17:54interfere.
17:55I've never
17:55presumed.
17:58If we're
17:58going to go
17:59down this
17:59road, why
18:00don't we
18:00take over
18:00zoning?
18:02So we
18:02can do
18:03zoning for
18:03D.C.
18:04We can
18:05decide on
18:05the building
18:06height limit.
18:07We can
18:07decide on
18:08where
18:09commercial
18:10goes, where
18:11residential
18:12goes.
18:14We can
18:15get involved
18:15in the
18:16geothermal
18:16experiment,
18:17which is
18:18exciting, and
18:19do whatever
18:20we want to
18:20do about
18:21it.
18:21We can
18:22really tie
18:23up this
18:23committee with
18:24a lot of
18:25D.C.
18:26business that
18:27belongs in the
18:28hands of the
18:29locally elected
18:30empowered D.C.
18:32city council.
18:32And I
18:34believe very
18:34firmly in that
18:35principle.
18:36I have never
18:36tried to
18:37overturn or
18:39legislatively
18:41question a
18:42decision made
18:43by that
18:43council.
18:44It's not
18:44about my
18:45personal
18:45preference.
18:46It is about
18:47the democratic
18:47will of the
18:49people of the
18:49District of
18:50Columbia.
18:51700,000
18:52fellow citizens.
18:54I urge to
18:55feed this
18:56bill, and I
18:57thank my
18:57friend for
18:58yielding.