▶ 0:02:48Good afternoon. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. Before we get into the bulk of today's business before the committee, I'm going to say a few words about the lawlessness and rioting on the part of protesters in Los Angeles over the last few days in response to ICE upholding the rule of law.
▶ 0:03:17Every every aspersion and wild characterization in the book have as every aspersion and wild characterization in the book have been thrown around online and within the media by those who've obvious towards this administration. There's nothing new. We've heard the same crowing for months by these same people. But here's what so many refuse to acknowledge, let alone accept.
▶ 0:03:47We are a nation of laws. If you come into our nation illegally, you're breaking the law. If you overstay your visa and refuse to return to your own country, you are breaking the law. No one is objecting to the right to protest peacefully. That right is historic and enshrined in the First Amendment, and we all should support that.
▶ 0:04:11But what is not enshrined in the Constitution is what we've seen over the past few days in Los Angeles. People setting cars on fire, pelting federal agents and their vehicles with all manners of projectiles, and committing criminal acts that would land you in jail within the snap of a finger. The failure of both state and local officials to support the faithful execution of our laws is appalling.
▶ 0:04:39I'm sure our Democrat colleagues will attempt to pivot the conversation away from this lawlessness and direct their deeply harbored grievances toward an administration that's simply working to protect the safety and security of Americans. As President Trump said, order will be restored and these riots will be put to an end. Now, on to our business today in the rules committee.
▶ 0:05:06Today the rules committee is convening to consider four separate measures. HR 884, HR 2056, HR 2096, and S 331.
▶ 0:05:21HR 884 prohibits individuals who are not citizens of the United States from voting in elections in the District of Columbia and repeals the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of Let me make one thing abundantly clear. The only individuals who should be voting in American elections are American citizens. That's just a cold hard fact that some cannot stomach.
▶ 0:05:48Last May during the 118th Congress, the House passed an identical version of HR884 on a bipartisan basis. Given that the Senate did not take up this legislation and the District of Columbia's noncitizen voting law having gone into effect, we're here to correct this issue immediately.
▶ 0:06:11HR 2056, the District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act of 2025 requires the DR District of Columbia to comply with all federal immigration laws.
▶ 0:06:25This legislation removes the District of Columbia's sanctuary jurisdiction laws and requires strict compliance with lawful detainer requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well as the Department of Homeland Security.
▶ 0:06:42The DC City Council has a history of thumbming its nose at federal agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, that are responsible for protecting national security and the safety and well-being of the American people. For example, in 2020, the council enacted the Sanctuary Values Amendment Act.
▶ 0:07:06This prevents DC from learning about the immigration status of someone in custody and prevents the release of an individual for the purpose of transferring the person to a federal immigration agency.
▶ 0:07:22As the nation's capital, the District of Columbia should set a serious example that harboring illegal aliens and obstructing the work of federal law enforcement is not an HR, it's time to end these sanctuary policies once and for all so that law and order can truly be restored.
▶ 0:07:44HR 2096, the Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act, restores due process rights of officers who are part of the DC Metropolitan Police Department, MPD, and helps to confront crime in Washington DC. This legislation addresses two separate aims.
▶ 0:08:05Restoring collective bargaining rights for MPD officers on disciplinary matters and reinstating a statute of limitations on disciplinary cases to present to prevent indefinite investigations that undermine officer retention and recruitment.
▶ 0:08:27The DC City Council's anti- police policies have led to a serious reduction in force within MPD and as a direct result, these officers do not have the support necessary to carry out their jobs and duties on a day-to-day basis.
▶ 0:08:46HR 2096 will change this by providing MPD with those resources that will lead to the recruitment of highquality officers in the nation's capital who will ensure that law and order is maintained and that residents and visitors to the nation's capital kept safe.
▶ 0:09:07Finally, S331, the Halt Fentanel Act, we're working to tie a bow on this piece of legislation that has gained substantive bipartisan support and are very much looking forward to shipping it directly to President Trump's desk for his signature. With that, I look forward to today's discussion and now yield to the ranking member, Mr. McGovern, for any comments he wishes to make. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
▶ 0:09:35And since you brought up the situation in LA, I feel I have to comment. Uh, first of all, let me be clear. The president is escalating this situation. This isn't just a disagreement about the right course of action or the appropriate way to enforce immigration laws. Hell, President Obama deported far more people than Trump, those with criminal records, and he did it responsibly and lawfully. He didn't need uh to call in the National Guard. And guess what? Trump didn't need to either.
▶ 0:10:06Uh, in fact, the governor uh didn't even ask for the National Guard to be called in. And I'm I'm looking back at a quote from Donald Trump in uh 2020 uh after January 6th when uh he was asked about why he didn't he he call the National Guard. He said, "We have to go by the laws. We can't move in the National Guard. I can call insurrection, but there's no reason to ever do that. Even in a Portland case, we can't call in the National Guard unless we're requested by the governor.
▶ 0:10:35That's Donald Trump's words. But boy, he's changed his tune. Uh Trump, and I got to love this, Trump praised the National Guard for calming the situation. They weren't even there yet. They weren't even there yet. And he's praising them. Uh because this isn't about enforcing immigration laws. It's about creating a spectacle to justify his authoritarianism. This is what he wants. We learned today that Dr. Phil. Yes, that Dr. Phil was embedded with ICE agents during the raids in California.
▶ 0:11:05Now, are you really going to try to tell me that this isn't a White House escalated made for TV spectacle? Give me a break. That's exactly what this is. This is a manufactured crisis unnecessarily made, produced, and orchestrated by Donald Trump because he thinks it helps him politically. Constitution and simple human decency be damned.
▶ 0:11:27And let me be clear, those who engage in violence, anyone who engages in violence, those that harm our law enforcement should be brought to Period. But I support the right to peacefully protest in this country. So please, to my Republican colleagues, please, please, spare me. Spare me your lectures. Spare me your outrage. Spare me your crocodile tears for our brave first responders.
▶ 0:11:54You all and the president stand up and talk tough about supporting law enforcement. Trump said, "Nobody's going to spit on our police officers." This is the same guy who four months ago pardoned people who beat police officers with pipes, baseball bats, flag poles, and 2x4s. You all can't even bring yourselves to hang the plaque honoring law enforcement that protected you and defended this building that day. a plaque that the law requires you to hang.
▶ 0:12:24So until my friends condemn the pardons by President Trump of the violent criminals that assaulted our police on January 6 during an insurrection on our nation's capital until you recognize the brave law enforcement that that day, then you have no credibility to speak on the issue of violent protests against law enforcement. Um Madam Chair, now to get to the uh business at hand. Uh, we've got a long week ahead, so let me get straight to the point.
▶ 0:12:54Today's bills are nothing new. It's more of the same from House Republicans. More power grabs and more empty rhetoric. All to distract from the fact that two weeks ago, you all voted to give billionaires tax breaks by robbing hardworking families of things like health care and food. Three of the bills this week meddle in DC's local governance. They either chase problems that don't exist or duplicate efforts already being handled by the district's local government.
▶ 0:13:21What this makes clear is that Republicans are not interested in solutions. They're interested in control. Because if my Republican colleagues were serious about making DC safer, as they claim, the first thing they would do is restore the $1 billion in the district's funding that they slashed earlier this year. To be clear, this is DC's local taxpayer money, not federal money. We are talking about the city being able to spend their own money.
▶ 0:13:50How would you like it if the federal government came into Boone, North Carolina or Madisonville, Kentucky or Rock Hill, South Carolina, and they told your local governments that we are taking away half of your budget funded by your local taxpayers? $1 billion dollar was taken from the D from DC's budget by February's continuing resolution. Money that is crucial to support the public safety programs, social services, and infrastructure that residents and tourists alike rely on.
▶ 0:14:18And in case you don't know, the Senate already passed the fix. Donald Trump says he supports it and has asked for you all to pass it. So why are we still waiting? Why why push a political agenda instead of letting this city spend its own money necessary to address these issues? Is this really about public safety and the rule of law or just more performative politics?
▶ 0:14:43The other uh bill this week makes formatting changes to the halt fentinol act, a bill that the house has already passed in February. Look, two two things can be true. The fentanyl crisis is deadly serious and we have a responsibility to act. But the action has to be real. That means stopping dangerous drugs from entering our communities and and investing in the treatment and support systems that help people recover.
▶ 0:15:13But while Republicans talk a big game about stopping fentinol, they are slashing funding for mental health services, addiction treatment, and even Medicaid foundational for supporting our most vulnerable in their recovery. You can't claim to care about fis fighting addiction while gutting the very programs that make recovery possible. Unfortunately, this is the Republican playbook. pay lip service to real problems, then undercut the solutions that actually work, all while handing out more tax breaks to the rich.
▶ 0:15:43Look, I get it. Your GOP tax scam is deeply unpopular. If I had just voted to rip healthcare away from 16 million people, deny food assistance to seniors and children, and explode the deficit by trillions to reward wealthy donors, I'd want to change the subject, too. But these bills, these distractions, they're not going to work. the American people see through this and we're not going to let up because this is about more than politics. This is about people's lives.
▶ 0:16:09And with that, I want to uh thank today's witnesses for being here and I look forward to the discussion and I yield back my time. Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our first panel, Chairman Comr and acting ranking member Lynch from the Committee on Oversight and Reform.
▶ 0:16:37Your full statement will be submitted for the record and we ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Comr, I welcome your testimony. Thank you, Madam Chair and Mr. Ranking Member. I'm here today to encourage the rules committee to advance HR 2056, HR 2096, and HR884. First, HR 2056, the District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act, which the oversight committee considered in our March 25th makeup.
▶ 0:17:06The 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 to not work with the Trump administration as it works to remove criminal illegal 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.
▶ 0:17:37President 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. 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.
▶ 0:18:06When when they do not, Congress must act. HR 2020 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 want to thank Mr. Clay Higgins from Louisiana for his work on this important topic. He is the sponsor. Our next bill is HR 2096, sponsored by Mr. Gabberino of of New York.
▶ 0:18:35the Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act. The men and women of the DC Metropolitan Police Department serve their community every day to keep the district safe and secure. On January 4th, 2023, the DC Council passed the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022.
▶ 0:18:55The act stripped DC police officers of certain employee protections, making their jobs more difficult despite rising crime in the When the DC council passed this law, Congress acted swiftly in a bipartisan biccameal fashion to overturn it.
▶ 0:19:13The House and Senate passed HJ resolution 42 which would have overturned the entire DC law with 14 House Democrats and six Senate Democrats joining Republicans in support of the resolution. However, then President Biden vetoed the bipartisan resolution of disapproval. either President Biden or the auto pen. I don't I'm not sure, but we we'll give President Biden the benefit of the doubt.
▶ 0:19:40Uh allowing the harmful policies of the DC Council to remain in effect today. In another attempt to protect DC police, Representative Gabberino introduced this bill and to repeal certain provisions of the DC's Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act.
▶ 0:19:57That bill passed through the oversight committee last Congress in 2024 and was reintroduced this Congress and again favorably reported out of the oversight committee at our May 21st markup, but now with the full support of the White House. HR 2096 restores DC police officers right to collectively bargain over disciplinary matters and reinstates clear timelines for disciplinary investigations.
▶ 0:20:23HR2096 also repeals the DC council's requirement that the time and place of some adverse action hearings be posted to a public website. This public posting requirement enables activists to harass officers attempting to pursue their due process in the workplace. In summary, this legislation is necessary to support the recruitment and retention of the DC Metropolitan Police Department.
▶ 0:20:47DC cannot afford to continue to lose police officers during the ongoing crime crisis right here in the nation's capital city. My colleagues recognize the importance of supporting the law enforcement officers who risk their lives to protect our communities by restoring employee protections. This legislation gives the Metropolitan Police Department officers the due process they need to confidently do their jobs. Finally, I present HR884 sponsored by Mr.
▶ 0:21:13August Luger of Texas that prohibits individuals who are not citizens of the United States from voting in elections in the District of Columbia. On November 21st, 2022, the DC government enacted the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act, permitting noncitizen residents to vote in local election. This includes illegal immigrants and even foreign diplomats whose interest may not uh be in line with Americans best interest.
▶ 0:21:43This radical change to DC's election laws upset lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. For instance, my friend Washington DC Mayor Bowser withheld her signature on the act, something she has done only a handful of times. And last Congress, when an incidental bill was brought to the floor, 262 members voted in favor, including 52 Democrats. Unfortunately, the Senate refused to take up this bipartisan common sense bill to maintain election integrity in our nation's capital.
▶ 0:22:13The right to vote to vote is a defining privilege of American citizenship. Diluting that right by extending to non-citizens, whether here legally or illegally, undermines the voice of DC residents. Article one of the Constitution grants Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the nation's capital and the House Oversight Committee is charged with ensuring responsible governance in the district, including its election laws.
▶ 0:22:38I urge my colleagues to support Representative Fluger's bill to restore common sense protections and ensure that only US citizens have the right to vote in DC local elections. I strongly support these timely and muchneeded bills and request the rules committee to bring these bills before the full House for consideration this week. I welcome your questions and I yield back. Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Comr. Ranking member Lynch, you're recognized.
▶ 0:23:04Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member McGovern, and members of the committee. It is ironic that the overreach of these bills before us today regarding the District of Columbia reflect a similar disregard that we see today in Los Angeles by President Trump's attitude and overreach beyond local government in disregard of local government
▶ 0:23:34control. The protests and demonstrations in Los Angeles are the direct result of the Trump administration using extrajudicial methods without due process and deploying military forces against the civilian population. Donald Trump intentionally avoided the courts.
▶ 0:23:52He circumvented the legal and orderly adjudication of immigration cases and completely disregarded state and local officials and law enforcement in ordering a deployment against innocent civilians, knowing that this would tensions. President Trump wanted this violent confrontation to pit people against one another and distract Americans from the ongoing meltdown in the White House.
▶ 0:24:21the increase in prices due to Trump's tariffs and our nation's declining reputation among our long-standing allies around the world. Specifically, with respect to the bills before us today, I strongly oppose these three bills which would repeal or nullify laws, policies, or practices duly enacted by the District of Columbia because I support local self-government for DC. Congress does not have a constitutional duty to legislate on local DC matters.
▶ 0:24:51The framers expected Congress to establish a local government for DC. James Madison, one of our founding fathers, said, and I quote, "A municipal legislature for local purposes derived from their own suffrages will of course be allowed to them, meaning the people of of DC." Close quote. Indeed, Congress has established various forms of local government for DC since 1802.
▶ 0:25:17The Supreme Court has held that, and I quote, "There is no constitutional barrier to the delegation by Congress to the District of Columbia of full legislative power." Close quote. And in 1973, Congress passed the DC Home Rule Act, which established an elected chief executive and elected legislature for DC.
▶ 0:25:38And the purpose of the home rule act is to quote grant to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia powers of self-government, local self-government, and relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially local district matters. Again, close quote. Republican President Richard Nixon, who had been a longtime supporter of DC Home Rule, said the following upon signing the Home Rule Act.
▶ 0:26:03And I quote, "One of the major goals of this administration is to place responsibility for local functions under local control and to provide local government with the authority and resources they need to serve their constituents effectively. The measure I signed today represents a significant step in achieving this goal in the city of Washington. It will give the people of the District of Columbia the right to elect their own city officials and to govern themselves in local affairs.
▶ 0:26:29As the nation approaches the 200th anniversary of its founding, it is particularly appropriate to assure those persons who live in our capital city the rights and privileges which have long been enjoyed by most of their countrymen. Close quote. And it is notable that HR 2096, HR 2056, and HR884 contravene the purposes of the Home Rule Act. I'll briefly discuss the substances of each bill.
▶ 0:26:56HR 2096 would repeal provisions of 2023 DC law that made it easier for the police department to discipline officers for crimes and serious misconduct. Before this law, every DC police chief for at least the prior 25 years have had to have had requested such authorities. HR 2096 would inexplexibly revoke this authority.
▶ 0:27:22Contrary to the claims made in the purpose section of HR 2096 has introduced, violent crime is not rising in DC and the police discipline provisions in the 2023 DC law are not the cause of the police department's difficulty recruiting and retaining officers. In 2025, violent crime in DC is down 22% compared to the same period in 2024. In 2024, violent crime in DC was the lowest in over 30 years.
▶ 0:27:49The DC Police Department is not alone in having difficulty recruiting and retaining officers. Police departments of all sizes across the country, including in the city of Boston, have had the difficulty for many years. HR 2056 would effectively nullify laws, policies, and practices duly enacted by DC by expanding cooperation with federal immigration authorities. DC, like many other jurisdictions, limits cooperation with federal immigration agencies.
▶ 0:28:18Why do jurisdictions limit such cooperation other than the fact that immigration is a federal responsibility? I'll share the answers of the major city's chief's association. And I quote, "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 authorities to enforce federal civil immigration statutes expose police to liability for unlawful arrest and detention.
▶ 0:28:48Local agencies do not possess adequate resources to enforce these laws. In addition to the added responsibilities of homeland security, immigration laws are very complex and the training required to understand them significantly detracts from the core mission of local police to create safe communities. And I close quote.
▶ 0:29:06HR884 would repeal a DC law that allows residents who are not United States citizens to vote only in local elections, namely for mayor, members of the council, and state board of education, attorney general, advisory, neighborhood commissions, and ballot measures. The DC law does not allow non-citizens to vote in federal elections, which is a crime under federal law. DC is not the first or only jurisdiction to allow non-citizens to vote.
▶ 0:29:33At various points in American history, Congress and 40 states allowed non-citizens to vote in local elections. Territorial federal elections, including the home state of every Republican member of this committee. Today, approximately 20 municipalities allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. Republicans say they are concerned foreign diplomats might vote in local DC elections. I find that hard to believe.
▶ 0:29:58Both because foreign diplomats would have to under penalty of law renounce their right to vote in their home country and because DC has no authority over federal matters. In DC, the penalty for voter fraud include imprisonment for up to 5 years. Republicans are also concerned that undocumented immigrants might vote in local DC elections.
▶ 0:30:20We believe that is also highly unlikely because the DC voter role is a public record and undocumented immigrants likely would not want to identify themselves, including their address. I will close with the plea for Republicans, instead of interfering in local DC matters, grant DC statehood petition. The more than 700,000 DC residents deserve nothing less. Voting representation in Congress and full home rule. Thank you. I yield back.
▶ 0:30:52Thank you, Mr. Lynch. Chairman Coleman, would you like to respond to anything acting ranking member Lynch had to say with respect to his opening? I don't pay that much attention to my good friend, Mr. McGover, but uh I will say this. Oh, yes.
▶ 0:31:10Well, I would actually He he he cited the uh home rule act and I want to remind everyone that in the home rule act it grants Congress various power to interject when the DC government goes too far.
▶ 0:31:27So, uh, I appreciate what he said, but, uh, again, it specifically states that Congress that Congress can, uh, go in and um, act if if Congress deems necessary with Washington DC. And we did that last Congress in a bipartisan biccameal way. And I feel like this is another example of of our rule, our duty uh, in Congress and our role on the oversight committee.
▶ 0:31:58Well, I've always understood article one, section 8, clause 17, to give Congress the authority over DC. As um some have said, Congress has chosen to delegate some powers to DC's local governance through the Home Rule Act. But as you mentioned, these are delegated authorities.
▶ 0:32:24And you said if DC goes too far then the Congress had the right to go in and say we think DC has gone too far. And you pointed out these this these were bipartisan bills and past sessions did not get through the Senate. DC went ahead and put some things in law. We weren't able to undo those until now because we did not have unified government. Right. Is that correct? That is correct, Madam Chairman.
▶ 0:32:53And if you'll remember two years two years ago, we we had the I think it was a HJ resolution 42 sponsored by Andrew Clyde. It made it through the oversight committee rank then ranking member Raskin acted like it was a a racist bill or whatever and many Democrats voted for it on the floor. It then passed the Senate with a Democrat majority. Schumer brought it to the floor and then Joe Biden signed it into law.
▶ 0:33:23Uh that was the first bill that passed of the in the previous Congress and that rescended the their excessive criminal justice reform. And I might remind that much of the stuff when we step in on Washington DC is stuff that the mayor either supports or uh wouldn't sign her name on legislation that the very liberal DC council passed. So uh you know we we communicate with the mayor's office.
▶ 0:33:52I'm not saying she endorses the legislation, but she didn't endorse what the council did because she refused to to sign many of the bills that that we take up in in the oversight committee. Yeah. I I do think that it's worth mentioning again that in the Constitution, this is a absolutely piece of property in this United States that is not a state and then they all these all these bumper stickers that say, you know,
▶ 0:34:22taxation without representation doesn't all they have to do is is join the state of Maryland, right? rejoin the state of Maryland. Right. So, I I thank you very much for um for bringing these bills to us and I now recognize Mr. McGover. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Comr. Um there are some DC residents in the room right now. I assume they're DC residents. They all have free DC uh t uh t-shirts on.
▶ 0:34:52Um but I presume that they're here at least in part to stand up for DC's right to spend its own money. Um, the Senate already passed a bill to fix this. Can you tell them why um we have not acted yet? I I can't answer that. I I support DC spending its own money. That has nothing to do with the legislation we're we're uh presenting today, but I've said publicly I believe Washington should spend their own money and that was uh something that passed out of the appropriations committee.
▶ 0:35:21So, had nothing to do with the oversight committee, but I uh I support Washington spending their own money. Well, that's good news. And since you know it's your conference that's holding this up, maybe you can since you're you know you do a lot of you focus a lot of attention, you might be able to put in a good word to say the money. I will. I appreciate that.
▶ 0:35:41Um Chair McCr, uh if the right to vote is a defining privilege of American citizenship, which I think you've said in the past, do you support granting the American citizens who live in DC voting representation in Congress? They have a uh delegate in Congress, uh Miss Norton. She's on those oversight committee. A good member, but she doesn't have the same influence that everyone else does in terms of her her ability to vote on things. I mean, she's a her vote council on the oversight committee as much as everyone else.
▶ 0:36:09That's what I'm here to speak on as the oversight committee. She's a a member in good standing on the oversight committee. So, would you favor me giving you the same power she has and ex, you know, putting you in that? That has nothing, with all due respect, has nothing to do with the legislation we're we're doing today. If if if allowing non-citizens to vote undermines the voice of DC residents, does Congress repealing a law enacted by locally elected DC government, undermine the voice of DC residents?
▶ 0:36:38I I don't think that has anything to do with the legislation where we're saying illegal aliens can vote in local elections. Yeah. Well, I mean, Los Angeles has nothing to do with what we're talking about here today. and and that was the um you know and the chair of this committee opened up with comments on that and um and others have talked about that as well. Uh Representative Lynch uh what are your thoughts thoughts on uh on nonitizen voting?
▶ 0:37:05Well, consistent with the uh DC Home Rule Act passed in 1973, the the the chair is correct that um it gives Congress the ability to uh delegate certain um certain subject matter, certain uh affairs at the local level to the District of Columbia leadership, the the mayor and council.
▶ 0:37:34They've done that in the 1973 Home Rule Act. It was a partial grant of of uh of jurisdiction and of home rule. But in that legislation, it it it has a bright line distinction between local affairs and and affairs that Congress retained at the federal level on federal matters.
▶ 0:38:00these matters that are addressed in the including voting in local elections is clearly within within the area of local control and so that that has been granted to the District of Columbia and they should retain it. They have that they have that right under law. Congress made that grant. they the uh the the local council has not gone beyond their their writ uh dealing with local issues.
▶ 0:38:30So uh their their their preferences at the local level should stand. Chairman, is violent crime rising in DC this year? I'm sorry. Is violent crime rising in DC this year? Uh it's it seems like it is. But do you know? Well, from the information I've received, it it is. Well, the information I'm receiving says violent crime in DC is down 22%. Compared to the same I I can tell you this.
▶ 0:38:58Most of my staff and the people that my constituents that come to Washington DC are afraid to walk around at night because of the violent crimes are listening to you testified. But last year, violent crime in DC reached an uh an over 30-year low. So, um you know, that again goes back to what I said before is why it's so important to release the money that Congress is withholding from DC.
▶ 0:39:17Uh HR 2096, the Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act, would repeal provisions of a recent local DC law that made it easier for the police department to fire officers for crimes and other serious misconduct? Ranking member Lynch, did all the DC police chiefs dating back at least 25 years support the department getting this increased authority? Absolutely.
▶ 0:39:40There there have been uh I've been on this committee for 24 years and we've had a number of of uh uh police chiefs during during testimony before the committee asked to to retain or obtain uh that very power. So that's something that the local DC uh police chief has requested of this committee. And I'm going to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from DC Mayor Muriel Bowser opposing HR 2096.
▶ 0:40:07Uh the mayor said that HR2096 would quote reverse common sense disciplinary reforms adopted by the district to the sole benefit of those few Metropolitan Police Department officers who engage in egregious, sometimes criminal misconduct and seek to evade accountability. Close Without objection. Is that okay? Without objection. And just the final thing I want to say, um I don't think we should be referring to the District of Columbia as property.
▶ 0:40:36uh that that that that like a throwback to uh an era in this country that I think we all look at with with great shame. Uh and um and I'm I for one believe that uh the uh hardworking people of the District of Columbia who pay their taxes uh like everybody else in this country uh deserve a hell of a lot better than they're getting. And with that, I yield back. Thank you, M. Thank you, Mr. McGover. Mr. Fishbach, you're recog. Thank you, Madam Chair.
▶ 0:41:05I I don't necessarily have any questions, but I just wanted to say that I agree with you, Mr. Krummer, regarding the the crime rate. Um, you know, we've had we've had colleagues assaulted. We've carjacked. We've had many staff members hurt and um I know that at least one uh very close that I know was um was mugged, right? Um and so and and even though maybe maybe it's going down, it's still serious. Very good. It's still serious.
▶ 0:41:34And when our constituents are concerned, our staff is concerned. I'm concerned. I mean, I I don't walk around. Um and so I just I think that we need to um as as uh Chairman Fox mentioned that this is a special piece of land and we have a special responsibility and so I absolutely appreciate that you brought these forward and thank you for being here. Thank you. Thank Thank you, Miss Fishbot. Miss Scandal, you're recognized. Thank you.
▶ 0:42:03I can think of a million more important things that Congress should be focused on right now, but instead we're uh DC's affairs without providing DC the funding to which it is entitled. Uh time and again we've seen our Republican colleagues and the speaker use DC as a punching bag to fight dumb culture wars uh often in ways that directly contravene the political decisions of DC's elected officials.
▶ 0:42:33Congress shouldn't be meddling in Washington DC's affairs. We've had this debate many times before the rules committee. DC's residents didn't vote for a single person sitting on this committee or testifying before it. and we have no place telling those residents of DC how their city should be managed.
▶ 0:42:51It does hearken back a bit to uh the very founding of our country and the idea that people from far away should not be making political decisions for the voters in of all places the capital of our country. Uh DC residents voted for their mayor and their city government. And for decades, Congress has respected the ability of DC residents to vote for their own officials and manage their own affairs.
▶ 0:43:19The last thing DC residents need is a bunch of conservative politicians coming over the top to tell them what to do. And it's such a frustrating example of the hypocrisy, outright hypocrisy of our Republican colleagues because they love to talk about limited government, right? That's a core principle of the Republican party and local control. But the second that a local government does something that they don't like, they bring the full weight of the federal government down on them.
▶ 0:43:47So this is a very disturbing farce. Um when Republicans are in the minority, they are fiscal hawks, but when they're in the majority, they jump at the bit to tax and spend and drive up the deficit. apparently uh claim to support limited government but are quick to use the powers of the federal government to survey to police to call out federal troops against our own citizens and imprison political opponents.
▶ 0:44:15So, uh we might be able to still find some Republicans who claim to want to take back article one powers seated to the president, but not a single one is going to be allowed to vote to end the president's trade wars here. So, we could debate the merits of these bills all night, but we should be in agreement that DC should at least be able to govern itself, and we should not be telling the city's residents what to do. So, with that, I yield back.
▶ 0:44:46Thank you, Miss Scandlin. Mr. Scott, you're recognized. Madam Chair, I don't have any questions. I yield back. Thank you, Miss Leisure Fernandez. You're recognized. Uh, thank you, Chairwoman, and thank you for appearing uh here today on this bill, and uh thank you for attending our rules committee. We uh have had some very exciting rules committee.
▶ 0:45:09A couple of weeks ago, this room was crammed with Democrat uh uh Congress people who wanted to make sure they heard their voices. And so, thank you for attending. Um, uh, Chairman Comr, um, have you done an in-person town hall in the last few months and spring in person? I have, uh, lots of meetings with with people where, uh, there, you know, lots of people in the room and I open up for questions.
▶ 0:45:37So, an in-person town hall, an in-person town hall where I don't know what where the where the public is invited, where anybody is invited to come attend. Well, I I go to different I have 35 counties and I don't I'm not in charge of inviting who comes. I usually post it on Facebook, so I guess it's kind of public. Well, you know, I have a huge rural district. In fact, I would actually argue that my district is larger than yours, although yours is in a very beautiful part of the country. Uh and I've had a lot of town halls.
▶ 0:46:06I I uh noticed that there had, you know, I wanted to make sure if you had and I noticed that there were quite a few news releases about how uh people were asking you to have town halls and that uh they did not believe that what you were doing was actually a town hall that was open to the public. But I've done several uh and I need to share with you uh that I've collected hundreds of handwritten questions. Um I've answered, you know, by random. Anybody can ask a question.
▶ 0:46:37We we pull it out of the hat because we've had thousands show up to answer questions, right? We've got in rural areas, more urban areas. I can Yeah. It It's uh predominantly rural, a few suburbans. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
▶ 0:46:57Not a single one of those questions, either written or spoken, has ever asked us, what are you doing to micromanage DC? They are concerned about the Medicaid cuts. They are concerned about the impact on the VA and veterans when we start firing federal employees, 30% who are veterans. They are concerned about the education cuts. They are concerned about our failure to to pass a farm bill.
▶ 0:47:27They are concerned about the decline of democracy in the United States. They're concerned about all this. But they never say, "What are you doing to make sure that the local elected officials in DC don't have a say in what they're doing. It's just not something that they seem to be concerned about in my part of the district.
▶ 0:47:50But here we are, despite the fact that America is worried about the cost of living, dealing with four bills, three bills to overturn and micromanage DC. And you know, one of the bills is called Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act. In some ways, there is truth to that title.
▶ 0:48:16There is an emergency in our nation's capital that we should protect Americans from. But I would argue it's Trump's greed, corruption, and waste. Not DC's local government. For example, next week Trump is going to host a massive military parade for his birthday. For his birthday. Chairman Comr, how much money is that parade going to cost the Washington DC government? Do you know? I have no idea. You have no idea?
▶ 0:48:45Well, it's estimated that Trump's vanity parade could cost $16 million. $16 million to DC. They're going to have to repair the roads. People are going to lose uh income because that's going to be going on. So, do you know how much money Trump's uh parade is going to cost American taxpayers separate from DC? I do not. It's $45 million.
▶ 0:49:12So, we're going to be spending $45 million for a military parade. That $45 million could be used for all kinds of amazing things for our veterans. If we want to take care of our military, let's talk about how do we protect our military? Not imposing these costs on DC. Not saying you don't get to get, you know, your local officials don't get to actually make decisions.
▶ 0:49:41Instead, we're going to have somebody from New York, somebody from Kentucky, somebody, you know, from Texas making these decisions who DC citizens can't vote for. But, you know, the problem is about this parade, what is really problematic is that Trump doesn't honor military through this parade. In fact, he has done such harm to this military.
▶ 0:50:10He has dishonored the military over and over again. He famously referred to Americans who died in war as losers and suckers. He refused to go to the graves of American service members who were killed in World War I two. And they have removed they have removed pages and pages of military heroes from their websites.
▶ 0:50:37They have changed what's happened where what you can find out in Arlington about Latino and black and Native American and women heroes and some of those are people I know I have sat and visited with the code talkers the Navajo code talkers who helped us win World War II and they removed references to them because they were diversity.
▶ 0:51:04How dare we celebrate diversity in a country that is diverse? Now, this is another thing that gets me, Representative Chairman Comr. How many times did the DC officials and the Capitol police beg to have the National Guard sent in to help defend us on January 16th? How many times does the So, did the National Guard Mhm. We were here on January 6th. You were here. I was here. It was my third day on the job. Mhm.
▶ 0:51:32It's my third day on the job. There is violence outside. Mhm. They are breaking into this capital and our law enforcement and the DC law enforcement, the people who we are now saying you cannot make your own decisions about that law enforcement. They were defending you. They were defending me. They were defending almost everybody on this day. Not the new ones.
▶ 0:52:02We were requesting the National Guard. Do you know how many times they were requested before they showed up? Well, I've read differing accounts on who requested and who didn't request. So, you know that I I don't know and I don't think anybody knows. I think it's been It was 12 times. It was 12 times uh that. But there also look I this has nothing to do with January 6, but there also reports that Pelosi refused to call in the National Guard. That's not true.
▶ 0:52:29And so, but what we also know though is even when you you cannot you can just tell if you don't know exactly how many you know that it was hours and hours before they got here. Now, I would contrast and this is where what do you do with the military and how do you honor them with the military? We needed the National Guard here. We were requesting it. Local officials were requesting it. Let's compare that to LA since the chairwoman mentioned LA.
▶ 0:53:00How many times have the Do you know did the governor of California or the mayor of LA request the National Guard? I I don't know anything about what's going on in California with the National Guard. It has nothing to do with the three bills that I'm requesting. But I would like to comment on what you said my constituents want. My constituents are concerned about crime. They are concerned about illegals voting in elections.
▶ 0:53:24uh they are concerned about uh cities not cooperating with Tom Halman and ICE to deport the criminal illegals. So I hear that when I travel the district and I travel a lot. I mean I'm I stir you know as much as anyone. We don't disagree that criminal elements uh and those who are convicted of a crime should you know face the consequences.
▶ 0:53:51The interesting thing though is that the people that ICE are arresting are they've been citizens and there has been a huge increase in the number of people who are detained and arrested who have no criminal record.
▶ 0:54:12And that's what you were seeing in LA and across this country as people saying, "Well, we may agree on issues around enforcement of immigration laws against people who violate criminal laws. We should not be arresting and deporting people without any due process. And we should not be spending precious resources arresting detaining kids who are going to school." And that's what we're doing.
▶ 0:54:40And that's that kind of outrage that has led to protests, peaceful protests, and they should be peaceful. And we agree, Democrats all say on this day is it should be peaceful, and those who are not engaging in peaceful protest should face the consequences. But that's not what we're seeing. That's not what we're seeing. And I think it is uh it's it's climbing up to 25% of the people in ICE detention have no criminal records.
▶ 0:55:08And what's really heartbreaking are those young families who are being detained and deported who have cancer.
▶ 0:55:25So anyway, it is it is the chairwoman raised these issue and so I thought it was important that we actually talk about these issues of what's going on um because we do need to respond to what is really going on and um I think that if we're going to be telling DC what to do, we should also be giving them their money.
▶ 0:55:55because they are going to have to pay for all of that expense of the destruction of the roads through this vanity parade. And that is not what we should be doing here. We This is a city that is named after George Washington who made it very clear the military should stay out of political issues. It should stay out of civilian issues. And that has been a tradition in the United States.
▶ 0:56:21And we should not be having a military parade that is actually a birthday parade because we do celebrate our military and we should we've had beautiful parades when World War I uh and World War II ended, when we got into World War II. There are things for this, but it's not to be used as a play thing. It insults George Washington when we do that. And with that, Madame Chair, I yield back. Thank you, Miss Leisure Fernandez.
▶ 0:56:52Mr. Griffith, you're Thank you, Madam Chair. Greatly appreciate it. Let me get some things straight. While there certainly are some things that are hard to piece together from January 6th in relationship to the National Guard, there are other pieces that we have put into place. Part of the reason we don't have everything is some of the some of the stuff that the J6 select committee got was um was damaged or destroyed in the transfer.
▶ 0:57:21It never made it to the National Archives. Some of it ended up in the in the White House. Uh as a member of the uh oversight subcommittee last term for the House Administration committee, we took live testimony. I've read a lot of the depositions from that day. And so, first we start with President Trump. And it's just putting the record out there.
▶ 0:57:41And there's some areas that are gray and some areas that are there can be controversy over, but there's no question President Trump gave the instruction to his um folks in in the military that if they needed the National Guard, he wanted 20,000 troops ready to go if that was what was necessary.
▶ 0:57:59At the time uh it was not uh authorized by either DC or uh the uh Capitol Police Board uh which comprised of u the architect of the capital, the uh sergeant-at-arms for the United States House of Representatives and the sergeant-at-arms for the United States Subsequently, uh, the order was given by Trump to the military, send the National Guardian
▶ 0:58:29because people were starting to request it. I believe it was the city, but I could be mistaken. Now, obviously, I wasn't prepared for this discussion today when I arrived, but he gave the order in in a and and it's just heartbreaking. And it's not Democrat or Republican. I don't know what happened here for some reason.
▶ 0:58:49And everybody can speculate as to what happened, but um a McCarthy didn't call. He says he did, but according to four witnesses who testified live under oath, all career military, that call never made it to the general in in charge of the National Guard that was sitting ready to go.
▶ 0:59:15They were sitting just a few miles away and it took over two hours before the order actually got to them. Why that happened, that's anybody's judgment. I'm not trying to to pass judgment on this. I'm just telling you what our investigation found. That's one line. and all four witnesses who were with the general who said they were on they were able to see his communications and they were able to hear his communications at all time on January 6th.
▶ 0:59:46They all swore under oath that order didn't come through and I forget the exact time but it was about two hours after the initial order was son, and of course he might have some bias and and that is to be recognized in a separate hearing, testified that he had actually asked for them at some point and that the chain of command went up to the sergeant-at-arms on the House side and he didn't get a response back.
▶ 1:00:12There's all kinds of controversy about why he didn't get the response back and different people have different versions. So, I'm not trying to get into that today. I'm just saying before we go saying that that for some reason the president stopped the National Guard from being there. The facts do not support that the president was the problem. Were there problems? Absolutely. Is there plenty of blame to go around? Absolutely. But the president did what he was supposed to. It was kind interesting.
▶ 1:00:39One of the witnesses at another hearing said, well, and when asked questions, well, why didn't the president just call the National Guard himself? And it's fascinating because the arguments are the same uh that you hear banned out and and it was pretty clear had he gone outside of the chain of command and called the general of the National Guard himself, we would be hearing complaints and would have heard complaints that day that he had overstepped his authority that he was supposed to give the order to his uh military commanders who were there present with
▶ 1:01:10him. He did that and the evidence is very clear on that. Why that? Why there was a mis why it took two hours to get from him saying go to I mean he had them ready but from go to when they got the order. We'll be debating that for years but but those are the facts.
▶ 1:01:29son says that he asked that the order be given uh earlier uh and that it went through the Capitol Police Board uh and that it never he never got the the green light to get the National Guard in for hours as well. That's again there's all kinds of controversy around that one, but the fact that the order was given is documented and the fact that it didn't get received is documented. Why it didn't we can speculate on.
▶ 1:01:57That being said, Madam Chair, we got a lot of important issues here today and I didn't realize we were going to get into that or I brought all my notes over with me and I could give you even more detail. I probably ought gave you more than you wanted. That said, I have always believed and have put bills in in the past and and putting it in again that uh what Virginia did in 1846 regarding its portions of the District of Columbia with retro session uh was the correct way to go.
▶ 1:02:26And I have I have had a bill that would take care of everything in the hopper. And again, it's it's bipartisan. Nobody likes my bill but me. But it's a there is a retro I say that it has been voted on a couple as uh motions to recommit when when the Democrats were in charge. But the retro session bill that I've introduced takes out a small sliver which would be an enclave be about a hundred people living in it. and those people would be allowed to vote in in Maryland.
▶ 1:02:56All of what is currently the District of Columbia was Maryland territory. The retro session of 1846 gave back to the Commonwealth of Virginia those sections of the District of Columbia that had originally been seated by the Commonwealth of Virginia to the District of Columbia and there was a vote. it all took place and it came back in so that uh Alexandria and parts of Arlington, if not all of Arlington, but at least parts of Arlington were once part of the District of Columbia.
▶ 1:03:26I I believe that retro session is the way to go to to solve a lot of these problems and these these conflicts that occur when you have such a large federal enclave. As we all know, when they originally created the District of Columbia, it was to be the governing body. the legislature was not to be full-time. It was not thought that it was going to grow into the city that it is today. And so I believe that retro session is the proper way to go. And what's interesting is we don't have any nobody challenged it in 1846.
▶ 1:03:56Some might argue that it's unconstitutional to do retro session. I don't think that it is necessarily, but if it is, then the 1846 retro session wasn't proper either, and that's never been challenged. Uh so we'll see. But that those are my feelings on these matters, Madam Chairman. And with that, I yield back. Thank you very much, Mr. Griffith, and it's you're always enlightening to us, and I appreciate it.
▶ 1:04:24Well, um, Mr. Norman, you're recognized. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Coma. Thank you, Mr. Lynchville, for coming. Uh, Mr. Mr. Doesn't the District of Columbia receive federal funds to the amount of $7.1 billion representing a quarter of the funding that they get? Yes, sir. And they're arguing about per the Constitution, the Congress has a right to intervene. Where is the debate on this? It's not debatable.
▶ 1:04:53I mean, article 1, section 8, clause 17 of the constitution grants Congress exclusive authority over the District of Columbia and the oversight committee is the committee of jurisdiction. Have they given any of the money back? 7.4 billion that they've gotten. Not not to my knowledge because it's passed through it's administered through pass through grants and then they can decide how they want to spend it. Yes, sir.
▶ 1:05:17Uh isn't it isn't it true too that you can uh just be a visitor just coming into District of Columbia and vote the they have pretty uh lax election laws with respect to uh you know this new bill that we're trying to resend that allows uh illegals to to vote in local elections.
▶ 1:05:41You know, most people around this country are laughing at this fact they would even let that happen or want this to happen particular with illegals, particularly with letting illegals who who are not citizens of this country. So, it really makes um it goes against everything our constitution was built on, doesn't it? It does.
▶ 1:05:59And you think of so many of the just think of the embassies that are that are here and the the diplomats from the hostile countries that are here that would be allowed to legally vote in DC elections for the mayor for the school board and all the local elections and hopefully they distinguish between local and and federal elections. There's three electoral college votes here as as everyone knows in the fentanyl crisis that my good friend M.
▶ 1:06:26McGovern mentioned about, you know, not having enough counselors and all. I think that's true, but wasn't this called a lot of it caused by the 15 million illegals that President Biden led in this country? Uh, and the American people rejected during the last election. Yes, sir.
▶ 1:06:44The oversight committee traveled three times as a committee and I know we have individual members that represent border states, but we we traveled three times, met with the border patrol, met with ICE, met with local citizens, and uh all of our drug task force people all said that the overwhelming majority of fentanyl is is just being packed across the unsecure southern border in the Biden So really the empathy there was no outrage over what Biden did by
▶ 1:07:14my good friends on not not by Congress but I believe there there was outrage by the American people. I think that was the a major issue in the presidential election in my opinion. That's why 77 million people rejected the B administration what they did to this country. Well I appreciate you bringing all of these bills up. It makes sense.
▶ 1:07:33the you know people watching this are saying are they really questioning illegals voting are they really questioning those who just visit voting and as far as the crime being down isn't that doesn't that have a lot if it is down I I would have to see who put the numbers together yeah isn't it being crime is taking a a downward shift because of this president oh deporting the gangs that are in here and getting the the going after
▶ 1:08:03them. And again, the American people reject uh letting everybody in that the Biden administration did. And the only reason you can that I've saw that they were doing that because I got asked that on the stump uh to create a power base. They thought they had a an elected group that would keep them in power and it didn't work, did it?
▶ 1:08:27their their position on this bill is consistent with their opposition to showing a valid ID to to vote in in other states. I mean, it it seems like it's the position of a lot of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to let illegals vote in elections. And you know, that's uh that's not what I think a majority of Americans support. I know it's not what people in the first district of Kentucky want.
▶ 1:08:53Well, in South Carolina, uh, we reject what, uh, what that administration did and thank God we've got a rectifying it now. Thanks for what you're doing. Appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Mad. I yel back, Mr. McC. Yeah. I I just want to point out for the record to the gentleman from South Carolina that uh, South Carolina receives significantly more in federal funding than it contributes in taxes. In FY2022, South Carolina received $18.4 billion in federal trans and federal transfers.
▶ 1:09:22That makes makes it a taker state. I'm from Massachusetts. There's a giver state and my constituents are wondering why the hell are we giving you more than you pay in uh than you pay in? Because we're not asking for illegals to vote. No, the deal is because people people you are a taker state and how much do you give back to the uh to the federal government? You take more than you pay than you give in. I yield back. That's just wrong. You're flat out that's a fact. Mr. Governor Mr. Norman has the time.
▶ 1:09:52No, he yielded back, Madam Chair. Thank you. Yeah. So, I Yeah, and I'll provide him the details so he understands that South Carolina is a taker state. South Carolina would never ask for to allow illegals to vote. South Carolina would never ask for visitors to be able to take Massachusetts money. And South Carolina would give us your money back for illegals to come into this country like your president, Joe Biden, did illegal. We want our money back from you, Mr.
▶ 1:10:217.4 billion back from District Mr. Norman. Do you yield? Thank you, Miss Hatch. And you're Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I don't know.
▶ 1:10:46I really don't know where that came from, but I did just want to note that um active duty military by active duty military byst state, South Carolina uh service men and women are Massachusetts are 3,573.
▶ 1:11:07So maybe it's true that tax dollars are coming more from Massachusetts than they are from South Carolina, but uh South Carolina and other states give more uh in service to the country than other states. And I think that's worth noting. Madam Chair, I yield back. Yeah. And I'm offended by that statement that somehow people in Massachusetts don't provide in service in the military and a thousand other ways. Mr. Mr. McGovern, I'm just noting that there are other ways other ways.
▶ 1:11:36I did not every everyone contributes in different ways and Mr. Norman State contributes significantly to that. I'm just making note of it. Mr. Jack, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, if I could start with Mr. Comr.
▶ 1:11:50first and foremost of course privilege to serve on your committee and um we spoke about this a little bit last week during debate on HR2931 uh the act that we move actually that we passed out of the house that um disincentivizes sanctuary cities from receiving SBA offices. And I I mentioned that because specifically as it relates to the bills we're debating today.
▶ 1:12:15I talked at link last week about trying to turn off that reward structure, that incentivization structure that existed over the four years of the Biden administration that, as Mr. Norman and others pointed out, flooded our country with illegal immigrants. And would love for you to speak on just in closing today, how this legislation will yet again turn off that incentive structure that existed over the four years of the Biden administration. Yeah, w with respect, Thank you, Mr. Jack, for the uh question and your leadership on the oversight committee.
▶ 1:12:43With respect to sanctuary city legislation, this this bill sponsored by uh Mr. Higgins, also on the House oversight committee, helps codify President Trump's executive order. Uh and you know, the overall objective, I think it helps ensure uh the oversight committee as well as President Trump's overall objective as well as the residents of DC. I would assume the overall objective to make Washington DC a beautiful and safe city again.
▶ 1:13:10And that's uh you know this is uh consistent with the president's agenda that he campaigned on uh to number one secure the border and number two to deport the criminal illegals. And that's what that's what the focus is here on the criminal illegals.
▶ 1:13:28And you have cities that are that simply are not cooperating that are bragging and advertising as sanctuary cities and uh they've become an obstacle uh to uh the homeland security secretary Noom and the ICE director uh Halman. So uh I think this bill is consistent with uh with the white house's agenda that they campaigned on and and received a majority of votes for the American people.
▶ 1:13:54Likewise, our Republican Congress, Republican majority campaigned on and received the votes that put us here. Just in closing, if you want to tie this all together as the last questioner, would you like to comment on just how all three of these bills will positively impact the District of Columbia in I'd love to. Uh let's let's start. Mr. Fluger's bill ensures that that only US citizens vote in in Washington DC elections.
▶ 1:14:19We don't want people who uh are here representing hostile nations to have a a a large a loud voting voice in in local elections. U you know the elections the American people want American citizens voting in elections. That's that's an issue I'll think anyone can campaign on that and and I would doubt very few congressional districts would have a majority of people that would oppose what Mr. Fluger's bill does. Uh Mr. Mr.
▶ 1:14:48Gabino's bill, HR2096, repeals legislation that many, including those in law enforcement, consider anti- police legislation by the DC council. This was again passed when they were in a in a hyper uh criminal justice reform uh mode that uh that saw them pass legislation that that in many people's opinion, mine included, sided with the the criminals over our hardworking women and men in in
▶ 1:15:19law enforcement. And u I I think that uh as I stated earlier, Mr. Higgins bill HR 256 is another step towards a safer Washington DC and ensuring that uh Washington DC is not a sanctuary city but rather cooperates with with this administration to deport the criminal illegals.
▶ 1:15:42I mean I if I were a criminal if if you think about it where would a a really bad criminal illegal want to cause the most chaos in America? It'd be right here in Washington DC. So, we need to make sure that this city takes national security seriously and working with this administration which is taking national security seriously. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, uh, Madam Chair, I yield and thank both you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Lynch for testifying. Madam Chair, I have a unanimous consent request.
▶ 1:16:12You have a unanimous consent request. Yes. If I could, I'd like to introduce into the record a um press release from the Department of Justice dated January 3rd, 2025 entitled Violent Crime in DC Hits 30-year low. Thank you. Without objection. Thank you.
▶ 1:16:43Thank you all very much. This hope closes the hearing portion of our meeting. The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentlewoman from Indiana, Miss Hchin.
▶ 1:17:05Madam Chair, I move the committee grant HR884 to prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the United States from voting in elections in the District of Columbia and to repeal the local resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022, a closed rule. The rule waves all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read.
▶ 1:17:34The rule waves all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on oversight and government reform or their respective design. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of HR 2056, the District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act of 2025 under a closed rule. The rule waves all points of order against consideration of the bill.
▶ 1:18:04The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on oversight and government reform now printed in the bill modified by the amendment printed in the rules committee report shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. Bless you. The rule waves all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on oversight and government reform or their respective design.
▶ 1:18:33The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of HR 2096, the Protecting Our Nation's Capital Emergency Act, under a closed rule. The rule waves all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waves all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended.
▶ 1:19:01The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on oversight and government reform or their respective design. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of S331 the halt fentanel act under a closed rule. The rule waves all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the bill shall be considered as read. The rule waves all points of order against provisions in the bill.
▶ 1:19:27The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce or their respective design. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommmit. You Thank you very much. You've now heard the motion. Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule? Uh yes, Madam Chair. Mr. McGovern, you're recognized. I have an amendment to the rule.
▶ 1:19:56I move the committee strike the provision from the rule that self-executes the manager's amendment to 2056 which could require the District of Columbia to turn over undocumented people who have been the victim or witness to a crime. And let me just say uh to my friends here this is this is shameful uh not only on a human level but it also uh but also from a law enforcement perspective.
▶ 1:20:24It would discourage the victims of crimes like sexual assault or robbery from coming forward or discourage witnesses from coming to the police to help solve those crimes. Now, it's my understanding that in committee, Republicans said they included the provision, the one that's being struck from the manager by the manager's amendment to negate the argument that this bill would discourage immigrants who are crime victim victims or witnesses to crimes from cooperating with DC police.
▶ 1:20:52By removing this exception, which the chairman didn't say anything about in his testimony, um Republicans have made it clear that they're no longer even pretending to care about public safety in DC. Deportation um is all that they care about. And this change, which will make law enforcement jobs harder, is being made with no separate vote. I mean, unbelievable. Foreclosed rules, and this is just being shoved in.
▶ 1:21:19Uh so I urge uh my Republican friends to join with us and vote yes on my amendment and I yield The gentleman yields back. Um Madam Chair, I'd like further discuss. I'd like to speak on the amendment. Miss Leisure Fernandez, you're recognized. So I'd like to speak on this amendment um with regards to its impact on victims of domestic violence.
▶ 1:21:46uh and we know that uh the various existing laws uh in our immigration uh uh I turned it off. So I want to speak in terms of its impact on victims of domestic violence because we know that it is very important that we protect the victims of crime and we often see that immigrant women suffer
▶ 1:22:16from domestic violence and they are fearful of reporting that violence which is why we have had we have the U visas and we have a system in order to protect exactly them, right? We want to protect the people who are subject to criminal activity. They are victims.
▶ 1:22:39And so when you do things like this and when you do things in other bills that Republicans have championed, you are actually putting women at risk. And we should not be doing taking actions that stand with the perpetrators of domestic violence and other violent crimes. I just don't understand it.
▶ 1:23:03I don't understand how you can say that you want to stand with family values, but you won't protect the women who suffer uh from abuse. And so I stand in support of uh the amendment and hopefully you'll reconsider.
▶ 1:23:20you uh the fact that it's also thrown in is just just mind-boggling how you're going to force your members to vote on this and to vote against women and to vote against victims of violence. Uh just once again just thrown in. I mean we do so much of that in rules where you you make these laws that uh people don't really have a chance to debate and vote on.
▶ 1:23:46Uh, so with that I um uh I yield back and you you're gonna ask for your own time, right, Representative? Thank you, Miss Leisure Fernandez. Miss Scanley, yes. I'd like to also speak in in favor of this amendment.
▶ 1:24:00I mean, having worked um as an advocate um in cases of domestic violence, it's incredibly common for the victims of domestic violence if they are here in some uh undocumented or in well, as so many of the folks who are in our system are, they're waiting to hear on their status that is used against them. So, it's not just about protecting the victims of domestic violence by implementing the kind of changes you're talking about.
▶ 1:24:29You're talking about protecting the criminals. You're talking about protecting the abusers because if the victims are afraid to come forward, then you're letting the criminals go. So, I mean, we certainly see daily evidence that if you uh let criminals get away with things, they keep doing it. And uh this this uh provision in the rule only enables criminals to get away with domestic violence. So, I think it's a welltaken amendment and I look forward to supporting it. Um well, thank you very much.
▶ 1:25:01Um the thought was that the exception in the original bill was overly broad. Someone could claim the witness's speeding ticket and DC be able to withhold their information from ICE.
▶ 1:25:18So, we know that witnesses to crimes can request an S visa or a U visa and be protected and that would give them legal status if they are witnesses to victims, if they are witnesses to crimes.
▶ 1:25:38So, we know that these folks often have representation from lawyers and so they're they're eligible to ask for those visas to then make themselves eligible. So, we don't think that this is punishing those who are going to report crimes. Madam Chair, can I just note that because of congressional inaction, the wait time to get an SU visa or U visa is now more than a decade.
▶ 1:26:05So in fact those those opportunities are not currently Thank you very much. Is there other further discussion on the amendment by McGovern? Um if not the um there the vote occurs on the amendment by Mr. McGovern. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. No. Any opinion? Chair the nose have it. Ask for roll call me. Mr. McGovern request roll call.
▶ 1:26:35The clerk will call the role. Mrs. Fishbach, no. Mrs. Fishbach, no. Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy, Mrs. Hchin, Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith, Mr. Jack, no. Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern, I. Mr. McGovern, I miss Scallan. I scallan. I Mr. Negus. Miss Ledger Fernandez. I Ledger Fernandez. I Madam Chair, no. Madam Chair, no. The clerk will report the total.
▶ 1:27:05Three nays, six nays, and the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Further discussion or amendment? Mlin, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee add a new section to the rule providing for immediate consideration of Senate Bill 1077, the District of Columbia Local Funds Act 2025 under a closed rule debatable for one hour equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the committee on appropriations.
▶ 1:27:36This bill would fix the ridiculous omission of language in the March continuing resolution that blew a $ 1.1 billion dollar hole in the DC budget. a budget that Congress had already approved and DC had acted in reliance upon. In doing so, it is important to note that every single cent of that budget is local DC taxpayer funds. It is DC citizens money.
▶ 1:28:04Madam Chair, this legislation passed the Senate almost three months ago by unanimous consent, which means without dissent. Yet, the House has taken no action. Over a month ago, Speaker Johnson said, "I talked to the mayor, told her he would we would do this as quickly as possible." End quote. He also said, quote, "It's just a matter of schedule." End quote. And the president has said that he supports it, too. So, what the heck is the holdup?
▶ 1:28:30If Republicans actually cared about law enforcement and first responders, they would pass this Senate bill to ensure that DC has the public safety funds it needs. funds that I repeat again are local taxpayer dollars. We see the speaker bringing all these bills to the floor this week that encroach on DC's self-governance. The least you can do is bring up the bill that would help the district and their first responders. So, I urge a yes vote on my amendment and yield back.
▶ 1:29:00Thank you, Miss Gan. Is there further discussion um on the amendment from Miss Hearing none. The question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed say no. No. In the opinion chair the nose have it in the opinion. I'd request a roll call vote. Miss Scandlin request a roll call vote. The clerk will call the role. Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mr. Norman. Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. Mrs.
▶ 1:29:31Houchin. Mrs. Howchin. No. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Scott? No. Mr. Scott? No. Mr. Griffith? No. Mr. Griffith? No. Mr. Jack no Mr. Jack no Mr. McGovern I Mr. McGovern I miss scan I scan I Mr. Goose. Miss Ledger Fernandez. Hi. Miss Ledger Fernandez. I Madam Chair. No. Madam Chair, no. The clerk will report the total three yays, seven nays. The um me in the opinion the nos have it.
▶ 1:29:59The amendment is not agreed to. Miss Scandlin. I would love at this point to bring up the DC statehood bill, but I'm pretty sure it would be ruled out of order, so we'll have to wait for another time. I yield Thank you, Miss Scan. Um, so, um, yes, Mr. Chair, I I I just want to take a moment to thank the residents of DC who are here today, um, and, um, and apologize to them for what, uh, this Congress is about to do to them.
▶ 1:30:29So, uh, but we appreciate your showing up and being here. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. McGovern. There any is there anyone else um seeking an a to offer an amendment? Hearing no further discussion. The question is on the motion from the gentleoman from Indiana. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Those opposed say no. No.
▶ 1:30:57In the opinion chair, the eyes have it. The motion is agreed to. Mr. McGovern request a roll call vote. Uh, the clerk will call the role. Mrs. Fishbach. I. Mrs. Fishbach. I. Mr. Norman. Hi. Mr. Norman. I. Mr. Roy. Mrs. Houchin. Hi. Mrs. Houchin. I. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Mr. Scott. Hi. Mr. Scott. I Mr. Griffith. I Mr. Griffith. I Mr. Jack. I. Mr. Jack. I. Mr. McGovern. No. Mr. McGovern. No. Miss. Scan. Mr. Scan. No. Mr. Negus. M.
▶ 1:31:28Ledger Fernandez. No. Miss Lecher Fernandez. No. Madam Chair, I. Madam chair, I the clerk will report the total. Seven yays, three nays. The eyes have it. The motion to to report is agreed to. Accordingly, the gentleman woman gentlewoman from Indiana, Miss How will be managing this rule for the majority and I will for the and Mr. McGovern for the minority without objection. Are we are we are we still on for tomorrow? I just want to make sure tomorrow.
▶ 1:31:58Okay. Thank you. With that, without objection, the committee is adjourned. See everybody