WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HR 7652

Respect for Local Communities Act

119th Congress Introduced by Sharice Davids and 7 co-sponsors

The bill blocks new ICE detention sites without public comment, local/state written agreements, and advance congressional reporting.

Introduced in House
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HR 7652

Summary of HR 7652 — Respect for Local Communities Act

Purpose and Intent

  • Aims to restrict the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from constructing, acquiring, renovating, or operating any new processing site or detention center for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) without:
    • Establishing a mechanism for public comment,
    • Entering into a signed, written agreement with appropriate state and local officials, and
    • Providing Congress with advance notice (through a report) of the planned activity.

Key Provisions

  1. Definitions (Section 2)

    • "Appropriate local officials" means:
      • The mayor, county executive, or equivalent local official of the area where the facility will be located, and
      • A majority of the local legislative body (city council, county council/commission, etc.) in that area.
    • "New processing site or detention center" covers facilities operated by or under contract with ICE, including those part of the Detention Reengineering Initiative, intended to hold people temporarily during immigration removal processes or operations, beginning on enactment.

  2. Requirements for New ICE Processing Sites and Detention Centers (Section 3)

    • No initiation of construction, acquisition, renovation, or operation, or other interest in real property for a new facility, until:
      • A public notice is issued in the Federal Register with:
      • A minimum 30-day public comment period,
      • Description of the scope of work (construction, acquisition, renovation, or operation),
      • Information on the agency’s due diligence, including compliance with federal immigration detention guidance and environmental regulations,
      • Any other relevant information and an economic impact analysis and an engineering review addressing waste exportation, water usage, and electrical demand.
      • After the comment period, the head of the relevant federal agency must:
      • Consider and respond to significant comments in line with applicable federal rules (5 U.S.C. subchapter II of chapter 5),
      • Enter into a signed, written agreement with appropriate local officials and the state governor authorizing the project (as applicable).
      • At least 30 days must pass after the agency submits a report detailing the planned construction/acquisition/renovation/operation to several congressional committees (Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; Senate Appropriations; Senate Judiciary; House Homeland Security; House Appropriations; House Judiciary) before the agency can proceed. This report must include a fully executed copy of the agreement described above.

Affected Parties and Stakeholders

  • Federal Agencies: Primarily DHS and ICE; any actions related to new processing sites or detention centers are subject to these requirements.
  • Local Governments: Defined as including mayors, county executives, and majority local legislative bodies; the bill requires engagement and an agreement with these local officials.
  • State Governments: Requires agreement with the governor of the state where the facility will be located.
  • Congress: Requires advance reporting to specified congressional committees.
  • Public: Establishes a formal public comment period and consideration of significant comments.

Procedural and Timeline Aspects

  • Public notice and a minimum 30-day public comment window are required before any new facility action.
  • Agencies must address significant comments and secure written local and state agreements after the public comment period.
  • A congressional reporting and review step must occur, with a mandatory 30-day waiting period following the submission of the report to key committees.
  • The requirements apply to new facilities beginning on or after the date of enactment.

Practical Implications

  • Creates heightened local and public involvement in decisions about ICE processing sites and detention centers.
  • Introduces formal environmental, economic, and operational impact analyses as part of the decision process.
  • Adds a cross-branch review (Executive and Legislative) with advance notice to Congress, potentially slowing and constraining rapid establishment of new ICE facilities.
  • Could affect the timeline for planned ICE detention capacity projects by adding public comment, local/state agreements, and congressional reporting requirements.

Sponsorship

  • Primary sponsors: Rep. Chris Pappas (and several co-sponsors including Chrissy Houlahan, Valerie Foushee, Sharice Davids, Maggie Goodlander, Shri Thanedar, Frank Pallone, Deborah Ross).
  • Co-sponsors indicate bipartisan interest in increasing local community involvement in immigration detention decisions.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.