Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3003) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to modify provisions relating to assistance by States, and political subdivision of States, in the enforcement of Federal immigration laws, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule, and in strong opposition to the underlying bill, H.R. 3003.

Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider its 37th closed rule for the year, and tomorrow it will take up number 38. My Republican friends are breaking all kinds of records here.

While I often wonder just why the Republican leadership is so afraid of open debate in the United States House of Representatives, I do recognize that it goes right along with the Republican majority's complete rejection of regular order.

The House of Representatives, I am sad to say, has ceased being a deliberative body where important issues are debated freely. The Republican leadership has shut this place down, and this is yet another example of it.

Look up the history of the bill the House will debate later today or tomorrow, H.R. 3003, the so-called No Sanctuary for Criminals Act. It was introduced on June 22. That was last Thursday. Like its 2015 predecessor, it has had no hearings, no markup, no input from local law enforcement, no regular order.

No one had a chance to testify about this bill. Not the U.S. Conference of Mayors that includes the mayors of over 1,000 cities and towns, Democrat and Republican alike, who represent over 150 million people.

Not the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Charities, Church World Service, and religious and faith leaders from all across the land.

Not the National Fraternal Order of Police, the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, or the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence.

Not the NAACP, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the YWCA, or hundreds of national civil rights, human rights, labor, immigration, and humanitarian organizations.

Mr. Speaker, on a bill that would affect hundreds of cities and towns and counties across America, why wouldn't we want to hear the views of these important law enforcement, State and local government, religious, civil society, and victims' organizations?

The answer is simple, Mr. Speaker. Because they all oppose this legislation. All of them.

It is much easier for Republicans to close down the process and steamroll this terrible bill through Congress than to actually get feedback from the American people and the leaders charged with keeping them safe.

If you are going to pass a bill that has so much public opposition, I guess it makes sense to do it quickly and with as little debate as possible.

Welcome to the House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker, where the voices of the American people are shut out as Republicans continue to ram through their radical agenda.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3003 does nothing to advance cooperation between local law enforcement with the Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Cooperation between local and Federal agencies to apprehend, try, and punish serious criminal offenders, and in the case of foreign nationals, to imprison and then deport them, has always been a high priority. These are matters of national security.

But instead of continuing to foster cooperation and strengthen this priority, this bill chooses to blackmail, coerce, and penalize local law enforcement agencies and demand that they potentially violate the Constitution of the United States, in particular the Fourth Amendment, the 10th Amendment, and the 14th amendment.

I wish my Republican friends were as faithful to the rights enshrined in these amendments of the Bill of Rights as they are to the Second Amendment, but then that is a whole other debate.

And let's think about this for a minute. What are they proposing to do?

For communities and local law enforcement that believe that doing what this bill asks them to do would make it more difficult for them to do local policing, and would make it more difficult for them to have the trust of members in their community to report crimes. What my Republican friends propose to do is take away important Federal funding to help keep these communities safe.

What are we talking about here?

I think it is important for people to understand this. Programs like the COPS programs, the Community Oriented Policing Services; the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program; the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program; and national security programs, those things would be taken away from local communities. It doesn't make any sense.

For example, the Bynre JAG is a major source of criminal justice funding for local law enforcement and provided $275 million in fiscal year 2016 for prevention and education programs, drug treatment and enforcement, crime victim and witness initiatives, and other community- based programs.

Other funding programs and grants that are threatened under this bill are used to address sexual assault, gang violence, and trafficking such as the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative, the Violent Gang and Gun Crime Reduction Program, and the Reach and Evaluation on Trafficking in Persons program.

Maybe nobody read what this bill does before they brought it to the floor. I just don't understand the logic of basically trying to blackmail communities by taking away important funding that is designed to protect the citizens of various communities across this country.

Mr. Speaker, this so-called sanctuary cities bill, as I mentioned, threatens to strip local jurisdictions of Federal grants and funding. It specifically targets law enforcement, counterterrorism, and national security grants when they prioritize working with immigrant communities to keep our neighbors and cities and towns safe.

I don't think Washington knows best all the time, unlike my Republican colleagues. I trust my local police departments on this issue more than I trust my friends on the other side of the aisle. Republicans would rather demonize these cities, towns, and local police agencies and force them to squander scarce local resources on immigration enforcement instead of local policing, making our cities and our communities less safe, not more safe.

This is why law enforcement and city governments oppose this bill. It deliberately and cynically undermines their ability to protect their communities, nurture public trust in the police and our legal system, and strengthen public safety.

Mr. Speaker, this bill reeks of prejudice. It isn't meant to solve any problem. It is meant to punish cities that don't embrace the radical views of the anti-immigrant rightwing of the Republican Party. It is meant to demonize all immigrants as criminals. It is meant to turn our local police into the lackeys of ICE.

Mr. Speaker, this House continues to wait and wait and wait for the Republican majority to show some leadership and bring up a comprehensive immigration reform bill. It has been more than 4 years since the Senate passed a strong, bipartisan immigration reform bill, and we are still waiting for House Republicans to step up and act, to actually try to solve a problem rather than continue to divide our country and continue to act in a way that is polarizing.

What we need is a way to bring 11 million of our neighbors, friends, colleagues, small-business owners, and hardworking residents out of the shadows. That is what makes America stronger. That is why 9 out of 10 Americans support immigration reform that creates a path to citizenship for the undocumented, according to a March 2017 poll by CNN/ORC.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the article about the poll.

[From cnn.com, Mar. 17, 2017]

CNN/ORC Poll: Americans Break With Trump on Immigration Policy

(By Tal Kopan and Jennifer Agiesta)

Washington (CNN).--Americans disagree with President Donald

Trump's immigration priorities, according to a new CNN/ORC

poll, with nearly two-thirds of Americans saying they'd like

to see a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants

rather than deportations.

Trump has made tough border security and strict enforcement

of US immigration laws a focal point of his campaign and

presidency--using some of his first executive orders to pave

the way for far more deportations and detentions as well as

ordering the construction of a Southern border wall.

But a CNN/ORC poll released Friday finds that the public is

actually moving in the opposite direction since Trump has won

election.

Americans are more likely to say that the nation's top

immigration priority should be to allow those in the US

illegally to gain legal status--and six in 10 say they are

more concerned that deportation efforts will be overzealous

than they are that dangerous criminals will be overlooked.

All told, 60% say the government's top priority in dealing

with illegal immigration should be developing a plan to allow

those in the US illegally who have jobs to become legal

residents.

In contrast, 26% say developing a plan to stop illegal

border crossings should be the top priority and 13% say

deportation of those in the US illegally should be the first

priority.

The number who prioritize legal status for those working in

the US illegally is up from 51% who said so last fall. That

shift comes across party lines, with Democrats and

independents each 10 points more likely and Republicans 8

points more likely to choose a plan for legal status now

compared with last fall.

While Trump campaigned heavily against ``amnesty'' for

undocumented immigrants, he has avoided rescinding an Obama

administration program offering protections and work permits

to those who were brought to the US as children, and in a

recent meeting with reporters a senior administration

official indicated Trump could be open to a compromise that

included a path to legalization, if not citizenship, if it

came to his desk.

Trump told Congress in his joint address last month that he

supported the idea of an immigration reform compromise, but

offered few details.

Offering citizenship to those immigrants who are living in

the US illegally but hold a job, speak English and are

willing to pay back taxes is immensely popular, with 90%

behind such a plan. That's consistent across party lines,

with 96% of Democrats, 89% of independents and 87% of

Republicans behind it.

The President has described his immigration policies as

focused on removing criminals, though critics of his

administration say enforcement agencies' definition of

criminal is too expansive and sweeps up people who only broke

immigration laws.

He has also ordered the creation of offices and reports

focused on publicizing victims of crimes committed by

undocumented immigrants.

Americans say, however, they are more concerned about the

effects of deportations than they are about immigrant crimes.

Overall, 58% say they're more concerned that deportation

efforts will go too far and result in deportation of people

who haven't committed serious crimes, while 40% say they're

more concerned that those efforts will not go far enough and

dangerous criminals will remain in the US. That number is

largely driven by Democrats--more than two-thirds of

Republicans say they are concerned efforts won't go far

enough.

As for deportation priorities, seven in 10 say the

government should not attempt to deport all immigrants living

in the country illegally, up from 66% in the fall.

A wide majority, nearly eight in 10, support deporting

undocumented immigrants who have committed other crimes,

however, an area Trump says is his focus. There has been a

small uptick, nevertheless, in the share who say the

government shouldn't be deporting those living in the US

illegally who have been convicted of other crimes, from 15%

to 19%.

Opinions vary by party on both of these questions, though

majorities across party lines are on the same side of both

arguments. Among Republicans, 55% oppose attempts to deport

all people living in the US illegally, below the 86% of

Democrats and 71% of independents who feel that way.

Considering deportation of those in the country illegally

who have been convicted of other crimes, 64% of Democrats

favor that, below the 79% of independents and 93% of

Republicans who say the same.

CNN/ORC interviewed 1,025 American adults by phone from

March 1 to 4 for the poll, which has a margin of error of

plus or minus 3 percentage points. Results by party have a

margin of error of plus or minus 6 points.

Mr. Speaker, instead of working together to find commonsense solutions to immigration, the Republican leadership offers extreme, deportation-only bills that undermine public safety and hurt our communities. Let them register; let them pay a fine; let them be documented and not fear talking with the police; and let us recognize their many contributions to communities across America.

These are our friends, our colleagues, and our neighbors. Our kids go to school together. We shop at the same grocery stores and eat at the same restaurants. We serve together on the PTA and worship together at church. Our country is strongest when we lift up our neighbors. This bill will only drive us apart.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is just more of the same old divisive Republican anti-immigrant formula. It will sow fear among the immigrant community, regardless of their status; it will tear families apart; it will subvert public trust of local law enforcement and police; and it will undermine the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, America is better than this. I urge my colleagues to reject this closed rule and to oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is clear that the laws aren't working. That is why we need comprehensive immigration reform, and that is why it is so unfortunate that the Republicans in this House have stalled on that issue. We had bipartisan support a few years ago for comprehensive immigration reform, but people here, for some reason, would rather just demagogue the issue than do something about it.

As I said before, I actually trust my local officials, my local police, more than I do my Republican friends who are speaking here today and who spoke in the Rules Committee last night.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to all of us from the National Fraternal Order of Police, which is strongly opposed to this bill; a letter to all of us from The United States Conference of Mayors, which is strongly opposed to all of this; a letter to all of us from the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, which is strongly opposed to this bill; and a letter to all of us from Cities for Action, which is strongly opposed to this bill.

National

Fraternal Order of Police,

Washington, DC, June 27, 2017.

Hon. Paul D. Ryan,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I know my friends think Washington knows best, but I trust my local police more.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman, my friend, says that this is a constitutional question. We agree that the Constitution is an important document, and it goes to the heart of why we are opposed to the bill that the gentleman is supporting here. The reason why we say that is because we have had Federal courts that have decided in ways in the past that cause great concern that much in this bill may be unconstitutional.

Now, that is why we should have had hearings, that radical idea that we keep on bringing up, like hearings where people come and testify. But I guess that is too much to ask.

One of the reasons why we are opposed to this is because we are concerned that it may undermine the Constitution, and that is a pretty big deal. I am happy to give the gentleman my copy of the Constitution and references to court cases if he would like to do a little research, but, boy, it would have been nice to have a hearing.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter on behalf of 407 local, State, and national immigrant, civil rights, faith-based, and labor organizations in strong opposition to H.R. 3003.

June 28, 2017.

Re Vote NO on the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003,

and Kate's Law, H.R. 3004.

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 407 undersigned

local, state, and national immigrant, civil rights, faith-

based, and labor organizations, we urge you to oppose the No

Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003 and Kate's Law, H.R.

3004, and any similar legislation that jeopardizes public

safety, erodes the goodwill forged between local police and

its residents, and perpetuates the criminalization and

incarceration of immigrants. H.R. 3003 would strip badly

needed law enforcement funding for state and local

jurisdictions, runs afoul of the Tenth and Fourth Amendment,

and unnecessarily expands the government's detention

apparatus. H.R. 3004 unwisely expands the federal

government's

ability to criminally prosecute immigrants for immigration-

based offenses, excludes critical humanitarian protections

for those fleeing violence, and doubles down on the failed

experiment of incarceration for immigration violations.

Over 600 state and local jurisdictions have policies or

ordinances that disentangle their state and local law

enforcement agencies from enforcing federal immigration law.

The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003, seeks to

attack so-called ``sanctuary'' jurisdictions (many of whom do

not consider themselves as such) by penalizing state and

local jurisdictions that follow the Fourth Amendment of the

U.S. Constitution by refusing to honor constitutionally

infirm requests for detainers. H.R. 3003 penalizes

jurisdictions by eliminating various federal grants,

including funding through the Cops on the Beat program, the

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, and

any other federal grant related to law enforcement or

immigration. Importantly, using the threat of withholding

federal grants to coerce state and local jurisdictions likely

runs afoul of the Tenth Amendment's prohibition on

commandeering, a position supported by over 300 law

professors.

``Sanctuary'' policies are critical to promote public

safety for local communities. Fearing referral to U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, victims and witnesses of

crime are significantly less likely to communicate with local

law enforcement. Local law enforcement authorities have

repeatedly echoed this sentiment, acknowledging that

community policing policies are paramount to enhancing public

safety. Indeed, ``sanctuary'' jurisdictions have less crime

and more economic development than similarly situated non-

``sanctuary'' jurisdictions. Withholding critically-needed

federal funding would, paradoxically, severely cripple the

ability of state and local jurisdictions to satisfy the

public safety needs of their communities.

Kate's Law, H.R. 3004, would further criminalize the

immigrant community by drastically increasing penalties for

immigrants convicted of unlawful reentry. Operation

Streamline encapsulates our nation's failed experiment with

employing criminal penalties to deter migration. Under

Operation Streamline, the federal government prosecutes

immigrants for reentry at significant rates. By all practical

measures, Operation Streamline has failed to deter migration,

wasted billions of taxpayer dollars, and unfairly punished

thousands of immigrants who try to enter or reenter the

United States to reunite with their children and loved ones.

We fear that H.R. 3004's increased penalties for reentry

would double down on this failed strategy, explode the prison

population, and cost billions of dollars.

Instead of passing discredited enforcement-only

legislation, Congress should move forward on enacting just

immigration reform legislation that provides a roadmap to

citizenship for the nation's eleven million aspiring

Americans and eliminates mass detention and deportation

programs that undermine fundamental human rights. Legislation

that erodes public safety, disrespects local democratic

processes, and raises serious constitutional concerns

represents an abdication of the Congress' responsibility to

enact fair, humane, and just immigration policy. In light of

the above, we urge you to vote NO on the No Sanctuary for

Criminals Act, H.R. 3003 and Kate's Law, H.R. 3004.

Sincerely,

National Organizations

America's Voice Education Fund; American Federation of

Teachers; American Friends Service Committee (AFSC);

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; Americans

Committed to Justice and Truth; Asian American Legal Defense

and Education Fund (AALDEF); Asian Americans Advancing

Justice--AAJC; Asian Americans Advancing Justice--Asian Law

Caucus; Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO

(APALA); Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence;

ASISTA; Bend the ArcJewish Action; Black Alliance for Just

Immigration; Casa de Esperanza: National Latin@ Network;

Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.; Center for American

Progress; Center for Employment Training; Center for Gender &

Refugee Studies; Center for Law and Social Policy; Center for

New Community.

Center for Popular Democracy (CPD); Christian Church

(Disciples of Christ) Refugee & Immigration Ministries;

Christian Community Development Association; Church World

Service; Coalition on Human Needs; CODEPINK; Columban Center

for Advocacy and Outreach; Committee in Solidarity with the

People of El Salvador (CISPES); Community Initiatives for

Visiting Immigrants in Confinement (CIVIC); Defending Rights

& Dissent; Disciples Center for Public Witness; Disciples

Home Missions; Dominican Sisters of Sparkill; Drug Policy

Alliance; Easterseals Blake Foundation; Equal Rights

Advocates; Farmworker Justice; Freedom Network USA; Friends

Committee on National Legislation; Fuerza Mundial.

Futures Without Violence; Grassroots Leadership; Hispanic

Federation; Hispanic National Bar Association; Holy Spirit

Missionary Sisters--USA--JPIC; Immigrant Legal Resource

Center; Intercommunity Peace & Justice Center; Interfaith

Worker Justice; Isaiah Wilson; Jewish Voice for Peace; Jewish

Voice for Peace--Boston; Jewish Voice for Peace--Tacoma

chapter; Jewish Voice for Peace--Western MA; Justice

Strategies; Kids in Need of Defense (KIND); Lambda Legal;

Laotian American National Alliance; Latin America Working

Group; Latino Victory Fund; LatinoJustice PRLDEF.

League of United Latin American Citizens; Lutheran

Immigration and Refugee Service; Mi Familia Vota; Milwaukee

Chapter; Jewish Voice for Peace; NAACP; National Center for

Transgender Equality; National Coalition Against Domestic

Violence; National Coalition for Asian Pacific American

Community Development; National Council of Asian Pacific

Americans (NCAPA); National Council of Jewish Women; National

Council of La Raza (NCLR); National Day Laborer Organizing

Network (NDLON); National Education Association; National

Immigrant Justice Center; National Immigration Law Center;

National Immigration Project of the NLG; National Iranian

American Council (NIAC); National Justice for Our Neighbors;

National Korean American Service & Education Consortium

(NAKASEC); National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health.

National Latina/o Psychological Association; National

Lawyers Guild; National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund;

National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; National

Resource Center on Domestic Violence; NETWORK Lobby for

Catholic Social Justice; OCA--Asian Pacific American

Advocates; Our Revolution; People's Action; PICO National

Network; Queer Detainee Empowerment Project; Refugee and

Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES);

School Social Work Association of America; Sisters of the

Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, New Windsor;

Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC); Southern

Border Communities Coalition; Southern Poverty Law Center;

T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights; The Advocates

for Human Rights; The Hampton Institute: A Working Class

Think Tank.

The National Alliance to Advance Adolescent Health; The

Queer Palestinian Empowerment Network; The Sentencing

Project; The United Methodist Church--General Board of Church

and Society; U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants;

UndocuBlack Network; Unitarian Universalist Association;

Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of New Jersey;

Unitarian Universalist Service Committee; UNITE HERE; United

Child Care, Inc.; United for a Fair Economy; UU College of

Social Justice; UURISE--Unitarian Universalist Refugee &

Immigrant Services & Education; Voto Latino; We Belong

Together; WOLA; Women's Refugee Commission; Working Families;

Yemen Peace Project; YWCA.

State and Local Organizations

(MILU) Mujeres Inmigrantes Luchando Unidas; #VigilantLOVE;

580 Cafe/Wesley Foundation Serving UCLA; Acting in Community

Together in Organizing Northern Nevada (ACTIONN); Advocates

for Basic Legal Equality, Inc.; Alianza; All for All;

Alliance San Diego; Allies of Knoxville's Immigrant Neighbors

(AKIN); American Gateways; Aquinas Center; Arkansas United

Community Coalition; Asian Americans Advancing Justice--

Atlanta; Asian Americans Advancing Justice-LA; Asian

Americans United; Asian Counseling and Referral Service;

Asian Law Alliance; Asian Pacific American Legal Resource

Center; Asylee Women Enterprise; Atlas: DIY.

Bear Creek United Methodist Church--Congregation Kol Ami

Interfaith Partnership; Bethany Immigration Services;

Brighton Park Neighborhood Council;

Cabrini Immigrant Services of NYC; Campaign for Hoosier

Families; Canal Alliance; Capital Area Immigrants' Rights

Coalition; CASA; Casa Familiar, Inc.; Casa Latina; Casa San

Jose; Catholic Charities; Catholic Charities San Francisco,

San Mateo & Marin; Causa Oregon; CDWBA Legal Project, Inc.;

Central American Legal Assistance; Central New Jersey Jewish

Voice for Peace; Central Pacific Conference of the United

Church of Christ; Central Valley Immigrant Integration

Collaborative (CVIIC).; Centro Laboral de Graton.

Centro Latino Americano; Centro Legal de la Raza; Centro

Romero; Chelsea Collaborative; Chicago Religious Leadership

Network on Latin America; Church Council of Greater Seattle;

Church of Our Saviour/La Iglesia de Nuestro Salvador

Episcopal; Church Women United in New York State; Cleveland

Jobs with Justice; Coalicion de Lideres Latinos-CLILA;

Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA); Coalition of

African Communities; Coloradans For Immigrant Rights, a

program of the American Friends Service Committee; Colorado

People's Alliance (COPA); Columbia Legal Services; Comite Pro

Uno; Comite VIDA; Committee for Justice in Palestine--Ithaca;

Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc; Community

Legal Services and Counseling Center.

Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto; Community of

Friends in Action, Inc.; Connecticut Legal Services, Inc;

CRLA Foundation; CT Working Families; DC-Maryland Justice for

Our Neighbors; Delaware Civil Rights Coalition; Do the

Most Good Montgomery County (MD); Dominican Sisters--Grand

Rapids (MI); Dream Team Los Angeles DTLA; DRUM--Desis

Rising Up & Moving; East Bay Sanctuary Covenant;

Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon; El CENTRO de Igualdad y

Derechos; El Monte Wesleyan Church; Emerald Isle

Immigration Center; Employee Rights Center; Encuentro; End

Domestic Abuse WI; English Ministry--Korean Presbyterian

Church of St. Louis.

Episcopal Refugee & Immigrant Center Alliance; Equal

Justice Center; Equality California; Erie Neighborhood House;

First Congregational UCC of Portland; First Unitarian

Universalist Church of Berks County; Florida Center for

Fiscal and Economic Policy; Florida Immigrant Coalition, Inc.

(FLIC); Franciscans for Justice; Frida Kahlo Community

Organization; Friends of Broward Detainees; Friends of Miami-

Dade Detainees; Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights;

Gethsemane Lutheran Church; Grassroots Alliance for Immigrant

Rights; Greater Lafayette Immigrant Allies; Greater New York

Labor Religion Coalition; Greater Rochester COALITION for

Immigration Justice; Grupo de Apoyo e Integracion

Hispanoamericano; HACES.

Hana Center; Harvard Islamic Society; Her Justice; HIAS

Pennsylvania; Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama;

Hispanic Legal Clinic; Hudson Valley Chapter of JVP; Human

Rights Initiative of North Texas; ICE-Free Capital District;

Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; Immanuel

Fellowship: a bilingual congregation; Immigrant Justice

Advocacy Movement (IJAM); Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project;

Immigration Action Group; Immigration Center for Women and

Children; Inland Empire--Immigrant Youth Coalition (IEIYC);

Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity; International

Institute of Buffalo; Irish International Immigrant Center;

IRTF--InterReligious Task Force on Central America and

Colombia.

Japanese American Citizens League, San Jose Chapter; Jewish

Voice for Peace--Albany, NY chapter; Jewish Voice for Peace--

Albuquerque; Jewish Voice for Peace--Austin; Jewish Voice for

Peace--Bay Area; Jewish Voice for Peace--Cleveland; Jewish

Voice for Peace--DC Metro; Jewish Voice for Peace--Denver;

Jewish Voice for Peace--Ithaca; Jewish Voice for Peace--Los

Angeles; Jewish Voice for Peace--Madison; Jewish Voice for

Peace--New Haven; Jewish Voice for Peace--Philadelphia;

Jewish Voice for Peace--Pittsburgh; Jewish Voice for Peace--

Portland; Jewish Voice for Peace--San Diego; Jewish Voice for

Peace--South Florida; Jewish Voice for Peace--Syracuse, NY;

Jewish Voice for Peace--Triangle NC; Jolt.

Justice for our Neighbors Houston; Justice for Our

Neighbors Southeastern Michigan; Justice For Our Neighbors

West Michigan; JVP-HV. Jewish Voice for Peace--Hudson Valley;

Kentucky Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; Kids for

College; Kino Border Initiative; Kitsap Immigrant Assistance

Center; KIWA (Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance); Korean

Resource Center; La Casa de Amistad; La Coalicion de Derechos

Humanos; La Comunidad, Inc.; La Raza Centro Legal; Lafayette

Urban Ministry; Las Vegas Chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace;

Latin American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Latino

Racial Justice Circle; Latinx Alliance of Lane County; Legal

Aid Society of San Mateo County.

Legal Services for Children; Lemkin House inc; Long Island

Wins; Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition;

Massachusetts Law Reform Institute; Middle East Crisis

Response (MECR); Migrant and Immigrant Community Action

Project; Migrant Justice/Justicia Migrante; MinKwon Center

for Community Action; Mission Asset Fund; Mississippi

Immigrants Rights Alliance (MIRA); Mosaic Family Services;

Movement of Immigrant Leaders in Pennsylvania (MILPA);

Mujeres Unidas y Activas; Mundo Maya Foundation; National

Lawyers Guild--Los Angeles Chapter; New Jersey Alliance for

Immigrant Justice; New Mexico Dream Team; New Mexico

Immigrant Law Center; New Mexico Voices for Children.

New Sanctuary Movement of Philadelphia; New York

Immigration Coalition; NH Conference United Church of Christ

Immigration Working Group; North Carolina Council of

Churches; North County Immigration Task Force; North Jersey

chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace; Northern Illinois Justice

for Our Neighbors; Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant

Rights; Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP); OCCORD;

Occupy Bergen County (New Jersey); OneAmerica; OneJustice;

Oregon Interfaith Movement for Immigrant Justice--IMIrJ;

Organized Communities Against Deportations; OutFront

Minnesota; Pangea Legal Services; PASO--West Suburban Action

Project; Pax Christi Florida; Pennsylvania Immigration and

Citizenship Coalition,

Pilgrim United Church of Christ; Pilipino Workers Center;

Polonians Organized to Minister to Our Community, Inc.

(POMOC); Portland Central America Solidarity Committee;

Progreso: Latino Progress; Progressive Jewish Voice of

Central PA; Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada;

Project Hope--Proyecto Esperanza; Project IRENE; Puget Sound

Advocates for Retirement Action(PSARA)n; Racial Justice

Action Center; Reformed Church of Highland Park; Refugees

Helping Refugees; Refugio del Rio Grande; Resilience Orange

County; Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network (RMIAN);

Rural and Migrant Ministry; Safe Passage; San Francisco CASA

(Court Appointed Special Advocates); Services, Immigrant

Rights, and Education Network (SIREN).

Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, Philadelphia/

Delaware Valley Chapter; Sisters of St. Francis, St. Francis

Province; Sisters of St. Joseph of Rochester, Inc; Skagit

Immigrant Rights Council; Social Justice Collaborative; South

Asian Fund For Education, Scholarship And Training (SAFEST);

South Bay Jewish Voice for Peace; South Texas Immigration

Council; Southeast Immigrant Rights Network; St John of God

Church; Students United for Nonviolence; Tacoma Community

House; Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition;

Teresa Messer, Law Office of Teresa Messer; Thai Community

Development Center; The Garden, Lutheran Ministry; The

International Institute of Metropolitan Detroit; The Legal

Project; Tompkins County Immigrant Rights Coalition;

Transgender Resource Center of New Mexico.

Trinity Episcopal Church; U-Lead Athens; Unitarian

Universalist Mass Action Network; Unitarian Universalist PA

Legislative Advocacy Network (UUPLAN); United African

Organization; United Families; University Leadership

Initiative; University of San Francisco Immigration and

Deportation Defense Clinic; UNO Immigration Ministry; UPLIFT;

UpValley Family Centers; VietLead; Vital Immigrant Defense

Advocacy & Services, Santa Rosa, CA; Volunteers of Legal

Service; Washtenaw Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights;

Watertown Citizens for Peace, Justice, and the Environment;

Wayne Action for Racial Equality; WeCount!; WESPAC

Foundation; Wilco Justice Alliance (Williamson County, TX).

Women Watch Afrika, Inc.; Worksafe; Young Immigrants in

Action; YWCA Alaska; YWCA Alliance; YWCA Berkeley/Oakland;

YWCA Brooklyn; YWCA Clark County; YWCA Elgin; YWCA Greater

Austin; YWCA Greater Pittsburgh; YWCA Greater Portland; YWCA

Madison; YWCA Minneapolis; YWCA Mount Desert Island; YWCA NE

KANSAS; YWCA of Metropolitan Detroit; YWCA of the University

of Illinois; YWCA Olympia; YWCA Pasadena--Foothill Valley;

YWCA Rochester & Monroe County; YWCA Southeastern

Massachusetts; YWCA Southern Arizona; YWCA Tulsa; YWCA

Warren; YWCA Westmoreland County.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) in order to respond.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question. And if we do defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to this rule to bring up Representative Bobby Scott's Raise the Wage Act, H.R. 15, which would finally give workers the raise they deserve, and increase the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour within 7 years.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, the reason why we are trying to bring this to the floor by way of defeating the previous question is because the Republican majority in this House had basically locked everything down so we can't get important bills to the floor.

We can't even get amendments to the underlying bill that we are debating here today. It is really unfortunate and sad for this institution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to the entire Congress from the American Immigration Lawyers Association in opposition to this bill; a letter from Amnesty International in opposition to this bill; and a letter from Church World Services in opposition to this bill.

Statement of the American Immigration Lawyers Association Opposing the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's Law'' (H.R.

3004), June 27, 2017.

As the national bar association of over 15,000 immigration

lawyers and law professors, the American Immigration Lawyers

Association (AILA) opposes ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act''

(H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004). AILA recommends

that members of Congress reject these bills which are

scheduled to come before the House Rules Committee on June 27

and to the floor shortly thereafter. Though Judiciary

Chairman Goodlatte stated that the bills will ``enhance

public safety,'' they will do the just the opposite:

undermine public safety and make it even harder for local law

enforcement to protect their residents and communities. In

addition, the bills which were made public less than a week

before the vote and completely bypassed the Judiciary

Committee, include provisions that will result in violations

of due process and the Fourth and Tenth Amendments to the

Constitution.

At a time when over 9 out 10 Americans support immigration

reform and legalization of the undocumented, Republican

leadership is asking the House to vote on enforcement-only

bills that will lead to more apprehensions, deportations, and

prosecutions of thousands of immigrants and their families

who have strong ties to the United States. Instead of

criminalizing and scapegoating immigrants, Congress should be

offering workable reforms that will strengthen our economy

and our country.

The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003

H.R. 3003 would undermine public safety and interfere with

local policing: H.R. 3003 would amend 8 Sec. U.S.C. 1373 to

prevent states or localities from establishing laws or

policies that prohibit or ``in any way'' restrict compliance

with or cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The

bill dramatically expands 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373 which is more

narrowly written and prohibits local law enforcement from

restricting the sharing and exchange of information with

federal authorities, but only with respect to an individual's

citizenship or immigration status.

Rather than empowering localities, the extremely broad

wording of H.R. 3003 would strip localities of the ability to

enact common-sense crime prevention policies that ensure

victims of crime will seek protection and report crimes. The

bill would also undermine public safety by prohibiting DHS

from honoring criminal warrants of communities deemed

``sanctuary cities'' if the individual being sought by local

law enforcement has a final order of removal.

Under H.R. 3003, localities that fail to comply with

federal immigration efforts are penalized with the denial of

federal funding for critical law enforcement, national

security, drug treatment, and crime victim initiatives,

including the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program

(SCAAP), Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), and

Byrne JAG programs that provide hundreds of millions of

dollars to localities nationwide.

In an effort to force localities to engage in civil

immigration enforcement efforts, including those against

nonviolent undocumented immigrants, the bill would make it

far more difficult for many localities, including large

cities, to arrest and prosecute potentially dangerous

criminals. The bill could even offer criminals a form of

immunity, knowing that any crimes they commit in a designated

sanctuary city would result, at most, in their removal from

the country as opposed to criminal prosecution.

H.R. 3003 would run afoul of constitutional safeguards in

the Fourth Amendment: By prohibiting localities from

restricting or limiting their own cooperation with federal

immigration enforcement, H.R. 3003 effectively compels

localities to honor ICE detainer requests--a controversial

and constitutionally suspect practice that is nonetheless

widely-used by ICE. Federal courts have found that ICE use of

detainers violates the Fourth Amendment, and that localities

may be held liable for honoring them.

The bill also expands detainer authority by establishing

that ICE may issue detainer requests for localities to hold

undocumented immigrants for up to 96 hours--twice what is

currently allowed--even if probable cause has not been shown.

Courts have concluded that localities cannot continue

detaining someone unless ICE obtains a warrant from a neutral

magistrate who has determined there is probable cause, or in

the case of a warrantless arrest, review by a neutral

magistrate within 48 hours of arrest. The expansive

provisions in H.R. 3003 would force localities to choose

between detaining people in violation of the Constitution or

being punished as a ``sanctuary city.''

Furthermore, this bill provides government actors and

private contractors with immunity if they are sued for

violating the Constitution. Provisions in this bill transfer

the financial burden of litigation by substituting the

federal government for the local officers as the defendant.

If H.R. 3003 becomes law, American taxpayers would be stuck

paying for lawsuits brought by those who are unjustly

detained.

The bill goes even further by creating a private right of

action allowing crime victims or their family members to sue

localities if the crime was committed by someone who was

released by the locality that did not honor an ICE detainer

request.

H.R. 3003 would violate the Tenth Amendment: H.R. 3003

would compel states and localities to utilize their local law

enforcement resources to implement federal civil

immigration enforcement in violation of the Tenth Amendment's

``commandeering'' principle. The Tenth Amendment does not

permit the federal government to force counties and cities to

allocate local resources, including police officers,

technology, and personnel, to enforce federal immigration

law. The federal government also cannot withhold funds from

localities refusing to participate in federal efforts if the

programs affected are unrelated to the purpose of the federal

program, or if the sanctions are punitive in nature.

H.R. 3003 would expand detention without due process: H.R.

3003 would increase the use of detention without ensuring

those detained have access to a bond determination. Under the

bill, nearly anyone who is undocumented, including those who

have overstayed their visa would be subject to detention

without a custody hearing. The bill also establishes that DHS

has the authority to detain individuals ``without time

limitation'' during the pendency of removal proceedings.

These provisions would dramatically expand the federal

government's power to indefinitely detain individuals, and

would likely result in ever growing numbers of undocumented

immigrants held in substandard detention facilities.

Kate's Law, H.R. 3004

H.R. 3004 would expand the already severe penalties in

federal law for illegal reentry (NA 276; 8 U.S.C. 1326). The

number of people prosecuted for illegal reentry has grown

steadily to about 20,000 prosecutions each year, and such

cases comprise more than one quarter of all federal criminal

prosecutions nationwide. H.R. 3004 adds sentencing

enhancements for people who are convicted of minor

misdemeanors and people who have reentered multiple times but

have no criminal convictions. This bill will not improve

public safety and will undermine due process and protections

for asylum seekers. H.R. 3004 would waste American taxpayer

funds by imposing severe prison sentences upon thousands of

people who pose no threat to the community and who have

strong ties to the country and are trying to unite with their

loved ones.

H.R. 3004 would impose severe sentencing enhancements upon

people with minor offenses: H.R. 3004 would add sentencing

enhancements for minor misdemeanor convictions, including

driving without a license and other traffic-related offenses.

Under the current version of INA Sec. 276, if a person is

charged with reentering the U.S. after being removed, their

punishment is enhanced by up to ten years only if they have

been convicted a felony or three or more misdemeanors

involving drugs or violence. Under H.R. 3004 someone who has

been convicted of any three misdemeanors regardless of

severity would be subject to a term of up to ten years.

This expansion would unfairly target large numbers of

people who are not a threat to public safety but instead are

trying to reunite with family members and have other strong

ties to the United States. Currently half of all people

convicted of illegal reentry have one child living in the

country. Increasing sentences for illegal reentry would also

waste taxpayer dollars, costing huge amounts of money to lock

up non-violent people.

H.R. 3004 would punish people who attempt to seek asylum at

the border: H.R. 3004 expands the provisions of INA 276 to

punish not only people who reenter the U.S. or attempt to

reenter the U.S., but also people who cross or attempt to

cross the border. The bill goes on to define ``crosses the

border'' to mean ``the physical act of crossing the border,

regardless of whether the alien is free from official

restraint.'' That means that people who present themselves at

ports of entry to request asylum and are taken into custody

by CBP to await a fear screening would be subject to criminal

charges based on a past removal, even though they are seeking

refuge in the U.S.

H.R. 3004 would impose severe sentencing enhancements for

people with multiple entries: The bill would also create new

sentencing enhancements for people who have reentered the

U.S. multiple times, even if they have no other criminal

convictions. If someone has been removed three or more times,

and is found in the United States or attempts to cross the

border again, H.R. 3004 law would provide for sentencing

enhancements of up to ten years. The bill makes no exception

for bona fide asylum seekers, which means that people who are

seeking refuge in the U.S. from atrocities abroad could be

subject to a lengthy prison sentence under these provisions.

H.R. 3004 would undermine due process by blocking

challenges to unfair removal orders: The bill will prevent an

individual from challenging the validity of a removal order,

even it was fundamentally unfair in the first place. The

Supreme Court held in U.S. v. Mendoza-Lopez,481 U.S. 828

(1987) that due process requires that a challenge be allowed

if a deportation proceeding is used as an element of a

criminal offense and where the proceeding ``effectively

eliminate[d] the right of the alien to obtain judicial

review.'' This provision in H.R. 3004 is likely

unconstitutional and will cause grave injustice to

defendants, such as asylum seekers who were deported without

the opportunity to seek asylum.

Again, Mr. Speaker, our objection is that Washington doesn't always know best. We ought to trust our local law enforcement officials, our local police as to what is effective in terms of protecting the citizens of our community.

To introduce legislation that would essentially punish our local police for doing what they think is in the best interest of their communities, this bill should be renamed ``punish our local police,'' because that is what it does.

I can't believe that we are going down this road. Maybe it is a nice sound bite, maybe it is a nice press release, maybe it fits in with the Trump campaign rhetoric on immigrants and immigration; but this is just a lousy idea. And I think if we did hearings on this bill, if we actually spent some time being thoughtful about this issue, my colleagues would come to that conclusion.

Again, I would say that what we should be talking about is fixing our

broken immigration system. We need comprehensive immigration reform. The Senate, in a bipartisan way, stepped up to the plate and did it. It is about time Members of this House have the guts to bring a comprehensive immigration reform bill to the floor and fix our broken immigration system.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I include in the Record a letter to every Member of Congress from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights in opposition to this bill; a letter to all of us from the ACLU in opposition to this bill; a letter to every Member of Congress from the National Task Force to End Sexual & Domestic Violence that is in opposition to this bill; as well as a letter to Members of Congress from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Catholic Charities USA in opposition to this bill; and a letter from NETWORK, which is a lobby for Catholic social justice in opposition to this bill.

The Leadership Conference

on Civil and Human Rights,

Washington, DC, June 27, 2017.

Oppose the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's

Law'' (H.R. 3004)

Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference

on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 200

national advocacy organizations, I urge you to oppose H.R.

3003, the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,'' and H.R. 3004,

``Kate's Law.'' These two bills may sound ``tough,'' but they

would ultimately make the problems with our national

immigration system even worse than they already are.

H.R. 3003 would unnecessarily and unwisely penalize states

and municipalities that are attempting to strike the delicate

balance between cooperating with federal immigration

authorities, on one hand, and respecting the constraints

imposed on them by the U.S. Constitution, on the other. At

the same time, it would do nothing to address the

constitutional concerns raised by the use of immigration

``detainer'' requests, concerns that the Department of

Homeland Security (DHS) itself has recognized in the past.

Among its provisions, H.R. 3003 would eliminate various

federal law enforcement grants to states and municipalities,

such as the ``Cops on the Beat'' program, unless

jurisdictions comply with all DHS detainer requests. It aims

to overturn local policies adopted by over 300 jurisdictions

across the country that have determined, as a matter of

constitutional law and sound public policy, including

community policing efforts, that they cannot hold individuals

beyond their release dates solely on the basis of a DHS

detainer request.

The senseless and tragic 2015 killing of Kathryn Steinle in

San Francisco has renewed the debate over so-called

``sanctuary cities.'' Yet the term suggests, incorrectly,

that certain states and municipalities are refusing to work

with federal immigration enforcement authorities. The truth

is that state and local law enforcement agencies (``LEAs'')

throughout the country already aid in the identification of

individuals who are subject to immigration enforcement action

through the sharing of fingerprints of those who are taken

into custody. LEAs with limited detainer policies have

determined, however, that they cannot continue to detain

individuals for immigration enforcement purposes, under the

Fourth Amendment and pursuant to numerous court rulings,

unless DHS obtains a judicial warrant, as all other law

enforcement agencies are required to do.

H.R. 3003 would not address the Fourth Amendment concerns

raised by the use of DHS detainers. Instead, it would leave

many state and municipal governments in an untenable

position: either they must disregard their constitutional

responsibilities and erode the trust they have built between

the police and the communities they serve, or they will face

the loss of vital federal law enforcement funding that helps

them fight crime in their jurisdictions. Congress should not

force such an arbitrary and unwise choice on cities.

H.R. 3004, the other immigration-related bill expected to

come to the House floor this week, would significantly

increase sentences for previously-removed individuals who

reenter the country. While the bill is an improvement over

other bills by the same name, in that it does not include

mandatory minimum sentencing provisions, it would still lead

to a likely increase in the federal prison population without

any tangible benefits. The Department of Justice's

``Operation Streamline'' program, upon which this bill would

build, has already shown that increased criminal prosecutions

do little but waste resources while failing to deter

unauthorized border crossings. It should be ended, not

expanded.

For these reasons, I urge you to vote against H.R. 3003 and

Mr. Speaker, I, again, would simply say that if we really want to do something about immigration, we ought to come together, like the Senate did not long ago, and pass comprehensive immigration reform. But, apparently, that is not in the DNA of the current leadership of this House.

Instead, we have bills that demagogue the immigration issue, that demean immigrants, that cause hysteria, and I find that very unfortunate.

This bill is a bad idea. It falls in the same category as that other bad, stupid idea of building a wall across our country.

What we ought to be doing is serious legislating, enough demagoguing, and let's get back to doing the people's business, and that includes comprehensive immigration reform.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we need to fix our immigration laws. When a mother in the Philippines has to wait 25 years or more for a visa to reunite with her son in the United States, is that system working? No.

To lose the entire childhood and young adulthood of your son? What mother wouldn't try to enter the United States some other way, in fact, any way that she could in order to be with her child?

When your daughter is threatened with rape and murder if she doesn't become a sexual slave to gang members; when your son and the entire family is threatened with death if the boy doesn't join the gangs, wouldn't you run away and try to find safety someplace else?

And when the family arrives at the U.S. border and they actively seek out the U.S. Border Patrol and voluntarily surrender to them and ask for safe refuge and asylum, is that really entering our borders illegally?

You know, when you have been an upstanding member of the community for 10, 15, 20 years or more in the United States, and you get pulled over because the tags have expired on your car, or your license, do you really deserve to be deported, to tear apart your family, to leave behind the businesses that you have spent a lifetime creating?

And does anyone in this Chamber honestly think that if this father or mother is deported, that they won't do everything they can to try to come back to be with their kids?

I mean, these are real stories. It is not fiction. They are not fantasies. It is real. And if you listened to people in your community, you would know these stories.

If you paid attention to your local police, you would know why it is so damaging to turn them in to ICE, because they rely on these community members to inform them of criminal activities in their community. The police don't want to do what you are asking them to do. Why would you force this on them? And why would you punish them by taking away essential Federal funding to help them protect the citizens of this country?

This is a bad idea. I guess, maybe it is a good press release. Maybe Steve Bannon thinks it is a good idea. Maybe it is a good sound bite for Trump. Who knows what the rationale behind this is. But it is not sensible. It is not thoughtful.

So if you want to get serious about these issues, you know, come together, like the Senate did, in a bipartisan way, and come up with comprehensive immigration reform. That is our duty. That is our job, as Members of Congress, not this garbage. This is a waste of time. This is an insult to the American people. We ought to be able to do better.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this. I urge them to defeat the previous question so we can have a debate and vote on whether or not to increase the minimum wage to $15 to give people a raise. Again, we have to do that because this House is being so tightly controlled that you can't get anything to the floor.

I would remind my colleagues that the underlying bill that we are talking about here today on immigration is under a closed rule. We will have another closed rule tomorrow. So much for democracy. So much for deliberative process. So much for openness. There is no such thing here. I mean, the Rules Committee has become a place where democracy goes to die, where everything gets shut down.

We need to do better. This process stinks, and this bill is lousy. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, vote ``no'' on the rule, and if it gets to the point we have to debate this, vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 414 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on House Resolution 414, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to bring this rule forward on behalf of the Rules Committee.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. The rule also provides for a motion to recommit.

Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from my fellow Judiciary Committee members Mr. Johnson of Louisiana and Ms. Lofgren of California.

H.R. 3003 received consideration by the Judiciary Committee as part of a larger bill, the Michael Davis, Jr. and Danny Oliver in Honor of State and Local Law Enforcement Act. That legislation was marked up and ordered reported by the Judiciary Committee on May 24.

As a cosponsor and strong advocate of the Davis-Oliver Act, I supported the passage of legislation before the full House. Today we have the opportunity to move an important piece of that bill forward and to strengthen our policies against jurisdictions that flout America's laws.

Mr. Speaker, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act is just simply common sense. John Adams said that we are a government of laws, not of men. As we approach the Fourth of July week, we recognize that America's foundation is that of the rule of law. Yet too often we have seen local jurisdictions ignore Federal immigration law and declare themselves sanctuary cities, as though their actions have no consequences for their law-abiding neighbors.

The reality, however, is that the localities that refuse to enforce Federal immigration law undermine public safety and break the democratic contract. Mr. Speaker, the sanctuary cities do not act in a vacuum. They endanger lives and set dangerous precedent.

To many people, it would seem obvious that local and State law enforcement should comply with Federal immigration laws and cooperate with its fair enforcement by communicating openly with Federal officials. It would also seem clear that jurisdictions that ignore these laws should forfeit the Federal funds set aside to support compliance with those same laws.

Despite this, sanctuary cities oppose Federal immigration officials routinely. These men and women find themselves handicapped by local officials implementing obstructionist policies.

In light of this, Mr. Speaker, I believe we need to better protect our communities by ensuring our laws are followed. H.R. 3003 takes steps do that.

I thank Chairman Goodlatte, Congressman King, and Congressman Biggs for their work on the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act. These Members are colleagues of mine on the Judiciary Committee, and they recognize the need to respond to the continuing problem of sanctuary cities with resolve, with confidence that Federal immigration laws safeguard every American community and apply equally to every American community.

The underlying bill provided for by this rule also includes legislation offered by Mr. King--Sarah's and Grant's Law. Sarah's and Grant's Law is named after two individuals, Sarah Root and Grant Ronnebeck, who were tragically killed by unlawful immigrants. The unlawful immigrants were released and remain at large, and the Root and Ronnebeck families were left to grieve unspeakable losses while the lawlessness continues.

It is past time for us to take action to combat dangerous sanctuary policies. We are a nation of laws and we need to act like it.

While there is no uniform definition of sanctuary cities, and no comprehensive or official list of these jurisdictions, we have, regrettably, become all too familiar with them. So-called sanctuary cities are those jurisdictions that obstruct immigration enforcement through noncompliance with detainers. They construct unreasonable hurdles to compliance and create barriers to communication between Immigration and Customs Enforcement and local personnel.

We understand that ICE has a job to do and that its officers took oaths to uphold those duties. Opponents will claim that this bill is unnecessary because ICE has the jurisdiction it needs. The truth is, sanctuary policies make the ICE agents' jobs more difficult, more dangerous, and endanger communities.

While the previous administration frequently flouted immigration laws and, for far too long, took a rain check on holding sanctuary cities accountable, even former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson agreed that sanctuary cities shouldn't simply be allowed to decline to cooperate with Federal Government authorities. In fact, he said in 2015 that it is ``not acceptable to have no policy of cooperation with immigration enforcement.''

Mr. Speaker, faithfulness to the law isn't like being offered a cup of coffee. You can't look at the Federal statutes and say: You know, no thanks, but I appreciate you offering.

H.R. 3003 confirms that this option is not on the table.

While I agree with former Secretary Johnson that we must have a policy of cooperation, the policies of the former administration too frequently didn't indicate a commitment to that goal. In fact, State and local jurisdictions ignored more than 12,000 Federal detainer requests in 2014.

Now is the time for action.

Thankfully, President Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and ICE to ensure that sanctuary jurisdictions are ineligible for Federal grants and are subject to enforcement actions. The President also charged these agencies with reporting on jurisdictions that have refused to comply with detainers to hold criminal aliens.

The first week this report was issued, it showed 206 known instances in which local personnel declined ICE detainers and released criminal aliens. These aliens reentered the communities after they had committed crimes such as assault, aggravated assault or battery, driving under the influence, or domestic violence abuses.

The reports indicate that we have work to do, but it helps us by identifying jurisdictions where personnel are

thwarting Federal law. It throws into relief the glaring problem of sanctuary cities and provides information that law enforcement and lawmakers can use as we assess the problem and develop meaningful solutions.

Mr. Speaker, I was in the Georgia State House when we took action there to address the issue of sanctuary cities. In 2009, we in Georgia outlawed sanctuary cities in our State. Last year, the legislature went further by requiring local governments to certify their cooperation with immigration officials in order to receive State funds.

Today we have a chance to take a step in a positive direction on the Federal level.

The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act prohibits States and localities from implementing policies that restrict law enforcement agencies from cooperating with immigration laws and officials. It gives teeth to that restriction by tying eligibility for certain Department of Justice and Homeland Security grants to State and local compliance with existing immigration laws.

The bill requires that there will be probable cause before ICE can issue a detainer, and focuses on grant programs reasonably related to the scope of the bill.

Importantly, this bill also calls for aliens to be detained if the alien is engaged in a crime that caused death or serious injury to another person. Had this provision been law at the time, it could have helped prevent what happened in the heartbreaking death of Sarah Root, where an alien who caused her death was freed on bond and remains at large.

The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act also takes the commonsense step of allowing DHS to withhold aliens rather than transferring them to sanctuary jurisdictions, even if the jurisdiction has a warrant. It simply doesn't make sense for DHS to transfer aliens who are removable under the law to jurisdictions that are looking for opportunities to let them go.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot talk about holding sanctuary cities accountable by strengthening our laws without mentioning the work of Chairman John Culberson.

In 2016, Chairman Culberson successfully convinced the Department of Justice to update guidelines in order to disqualify sanctuary cities from receiving DOJ grant money should they be found in violation of title 8 U.S. Code, section 1373.

Attorney General Sessions has reiterated that Federal law enforcement grants are contingent on compliance with existing law, and that the DOJ will deny fiscal year 2017 grant funds to jurisdictions that have refused to share information regarding illegal aliens in their custody.

Chairman Culberson's efforts made clear that State and local law enforcement agencies are expected to work with Federal law enforcement agencies on immigration matters. Through his diligent work, meaningful steps have been taken to restore accountability.

The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act builds on these efforts and ensures that jurisdictions comply with the detainers while strengthening our law to ensure that aliens who have been committing crimes such as drunk driving are detained pending their removal.

H.R. 3003 permits the Secretary of DHS to issue a detainer for any individual arrested for violation of a criminal or motor vehicle law upon probable cause that an individual is an inadmissible or deportable alien.

In this critically important step, the bill grants immunity to State and local entities for compliance with any detainer.

Jurisdictions that want to act in good faith and follow the law should be able to cooperate without being held liable for their compliance. The protections provided in this bill are a major step forward to effective enforcement.

Finally, this bill gives victims and their families a private right of action against a State and local government whose noncompliance and release of an alien results in a murder, rape, or serious injury of the victim. This measure, were it law, would have allowed Kate Steinle's family to sue after her tragic murder at the hands of a criminal and unlawful immigrant.

Sanctuary cities and jurisdictions ignore the law. They do it at the expense of the American people. Our citizens surely deserve better. They deserve to live in communities that don't let dangerous criminals back out into the streets. They deserve to see the law upheld rather than ignored. Law-abiding citizens deserve to see individuals who break our laws--not only by entering and residing in our country illegally, but by committing crimes once here--to be removed.

This rule provides for the consideration of legislation to strengthen the rule of law and to protect our neighbors and communities.

It demands that jurisdictions comply with our Nation's immigration laws and enforcement or face penalties.

Today we can take action to turn off the spigot of Federal funds to those jurisdictions that obstruct ICE efforts at the expense of Americans. We demonstrate that Members of this House will not sit idly by while sanctuary cities continue flouting the laws of our land with impunity. We strengthen our detainer policy, enable ICE to do its job, and, at the same time, help protect our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, again, I respect my friend from Massachusetts a great deal. I am not sure what is subversive to the Constitution in upholding the law.

When we deal with this issue, it is about a choice. We can talk about local law enforcement and we can talk about cities that do not want to do this, but they are making the choice here. It is time we hold people accountable for choices.

I think it is really interesting that we mentioned the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which, by the way, was meant to reimburse localities for holding illegal immigrants. If they are not holding them, then why do they need the money to start with?

So let's at least put it in perspective here. I can talk about immigration reform. I believe there is a lot that we can do in that. I agree with the gentleman. However, I disagree in the part here, why don't we enforce the law that is here?

By the way, that is currently the law under both President Obama and President Trump. Under U.S. Code section 1373, in order to get Federal money, they have to comply with this section. This simply builds upon what we have already done.

So I think it is a choice here. I think making it out to be anything other than a choice that the localities have made is really trying to subvert the process and discuss another issue. We can do that all we want. That is what ended up, a lot of times, happening in this rule debate.

But at the end of the day, this is about simply enforcing the law. I think if you go to places all over the country and you begin to ask them just a simple question and start it off with this, ``Don't you think we ought to enforce the law?'' the answer you get over 90 percent of the time is yes.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, again, just going on this, immigration is an interesting issue, and we can discuss this. There probably are not a lot of folks that I respect more than the gentlewoman from California, but this is a constitutional issue. Immigration is a national issue.

If we are willing to reverse this out and let the States and localities determine immigration, I think we settled that way over 200 years ago. This is where this belongs.

So, as we look at this, Washington is not saying it knows best. But on this issue, it is our domain; it is where we are supposed to be. This is our role.

We believe, simply, that enforcing the law is what we need here. If the gentleman believes that States ought to have more control in a lot of things that we do, then I think maybe I am getting him closer to agreeing with us on healthcare that we need to reform and replace ObamaCare and let States have a little bit more information in that.

But one of the things is that there is no affirmative action on the cities here. I think there is sort of a point to make here. There is no affirmative action on cities or localities to comply with this issue. They are simply, again, as I said earlier, making a choice.

If they choose not to work through it the current way, then they are giving up Federal funding. That is their choice. If they choose to do it, they are giving up Federal funding. They are not being forced and coerced. They are simply saying: You actually look at it; you make the choice in how you want to do it; then explain it to your population. If they are agreeing with that, that is your choice.

One of the things that often is said here is we trot out letters from associations. And I agree. I respect the National Fraternal Order of Police and mayors. They have a great thing. But they also represent members who are, right now, actually, not in compliance with this, who dislike this law. So, naturally, you would say part of their membership is going to be supportive of them.

But, also, growing up in the household of a Georgia State trooper, I also know a few things about law enforcement as well. Law enforcement wants to protect the communities they serve, and they want to enforce the law.

What is happening right now is that local law enforcement is deciding how they are going to do this. They are not cooperating with ICE to find a better way to work in their communities. They are simply saying: We made a political choice to do something.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think with the Constitution, this body has the political choice to say: That is your choice; just do it without Federal funds.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will address my remarks to the Chair, but I also will not stand here and let it be said from some political angle that the son of a Georgia State trooper has anything less than respect for law enforcement or wants anything more than to have law enforcement agencies do their job. And this is exactly what we are talking about. Do your job.

If you want to make a political statement, then work it out politically. But this is: Do your job, keep the law.

I mean, what else--are we going to get another letter from another police association saying: Well, we decided we are not going to enforce Federal whatever else?

This is an issue that needs to be discussed, and I will just simply say, from this perspective, of one who has lived it for 50 years and who lived it under the same house for 21 years, no, there is no one that respects law enforcement and their role more than this Member. And this Member is simply reflecting a lot of views of law enforcement.

This says: Let us do our job. We will work on these issues, but you are making a choice. If you don't want to enforce it, then don't take the money. Do what you want to do. Just don't take the money.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), our former chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I do believe that in just a little bit we will be debating this bill. I do believe in just a short time it will pass.

I think what was very interesting, Mr. Speaker, is the frustrations of my friend, and I believe they are true frustrations, and the stories of folks coming from terrible places around the world wanting to get here. We are the light on a hill. We are the ones that everybody wants to come to. I grant you that.

But I do have a question. For these folks who are leaving disaster, places in which law and order are not enforced, in which people are dying, and they are striving to get someplace else,

why in the world would we want to get to here to find that we have a situation in which local law enforcement can sort of decide what they want to do, where law and order is not followed?

You are leaving one area to get to an area in which what they say is law and order is what is needed and what is followed and why they come here, but yet we are saying no.

I think it has also been, possibly, Mr. Speaker, a vast mischaracterization to say that all police are against this. In fact, if we have seen, there was 200 that was identified earlier, the vast majority of police departments in this country uphold the law. So let's don't make a blanket assessment of police here.

I think it is just an interesting development here. I think you can talk about laws. You can like laws, you cannot like laws, you can do something about immigration.

But I do think we also need to address something else. It wasn't a part of this bill, but we wanted to make it a part of this bill, and that is comprehensive immigration reform.

I do agree with my friend. There needs to be immigration reform. I think it needs to start with security and safety and protection. It needs to start with actually enforcing law, and then begin the foundation of finding a way to get workers here--our guest worker program, our ag worker program, the things that we need to make our expansion so that we do it properly. I agree completely.

But, Mr. Speaker, I do find it has been amazing here because, just in the context of this debate, these were words that were used: We're demagoguing this issue. We didn't have the guts to address this issue. Our DNA of leadership is to obstruct or to not bring this forward.

Well, I think the one thing that I do need to remind is, this body, Mr. Speaker, if you are very familiar with this, over the last few weeks, we have been dealing with a very difficult issue--we passed it out of the House--that is healthcare, which was passed when this body was filled in a majority of a different party, my friends across the aisle, when they had, at times, filibuster-proof majorities.

They worked to pass healthcare. They worked to pass Dodd-Frank. They worked to pass their priorities.

My interesting question is, they did not work to pass comprehensive immigration reform. I am not sure why now we decide that it is such their issue that they are now blaming us, many of us who want to find a way forward.

But I think the answer is plain and obvious in history. They chose not to do it. I repeat, they chose not to do it.

So I think in the discussion of this battle, we will continue these discussions. We will continue to have differences of opinion. I think it is sort of amazing though that we do have to have a discussion here on telling police to enforce the law and work out the details as we go, work out what is in this bill.

But it also is about priorities, Mr. Speaker. For those of us who have had to look at the tragedies left behind as a result of some of these decisions that they have made to ``better'' their community, the deaths, the tragedies, then it is a pretty interesting choice. Is the death more important or less important than your policy?

All we are simply saying is: just don't take the money. Look at it from that perspective.

And we will continue to have these debates. My friend and I will continue to be passionately different on this, and that is okay. That is what this floor is for because, at the end of the day, we are going to have a vote. One side is going to win and one side is going to lose in this vote. And the debate is going to happen, and the bill is going to come forward. There will be another vote. And then it will go to the Senate.

I disagree with my friend from Massachusetts, respect his opinion, but, in this case, I believe the debate is fairly clear to most Americans. All we are asking is, and what the current law already states, follow the rules. And all we are simply saying is, follow the rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, this bill isn't about fixing our immigration system. In fact, it makes the system more dysfunctional and puts communities in peril. This bill is about telling communities how to police themselves and protect their people. It says: We here in D.C. know better than you do, local police, across the United States.

Now, 600 or more local governments engaged in what they call community trust policies. These policies promote, among other things, allowing immigrant victims and witnesses to crime to report these offenses to local authorities without fear of immigration consequences. Years of locally informed experience have proven that this approach best ensures these communities' safety.

I think that is why we have received communications from the National Fraternal Order of Police in opposition to this bill, from the Law Enforcement Task Force--that is 36 sheriffs and chiefs across the country--in opposition to this bill, from the Major County Sheriffs of America in opposition to this bill, from the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence against this bill, as well as the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, and the National Association of Counties.

ICE is not prohibited from doing their job, but as the San Jose Police Department has told me, San Jose police are not enforcing the securities laws, they are not enforcing the Federal tax laws, and they are not enforcing the immigration laws of the United States. They are doing their job to protect their community against crime.

Now, because they are doing that, the threat is to remove funding from jurisdictions.

Now, what would that funding be?

It is grants against violent gangs. It is grants for the Anti-Heroin Task Force and the Anti-Methamphetamine Program, grants on port security to

prevent terrorists from getting into the United States, and grants for the BioWatch Program to prevent terrorists from getting biohazards and killing us all.

That is not smart to take those programs away from local governments that are working with us to help keep America safe.

Now, I always think, as I said earlier, we are not doing bumper stickers here. We are doing laws. It is important to take a look at the details of what is in this proposed bill. In addition to banning collaborative grants with localities, the remedies it has made available is if a community has a community trust policy, the Department of Homeland Security can refuse to honor warrants--legal warrants--that are issued by that jurisdiction.

That is astonishing. That is simply astonishing because what the local governments have said on the detainer policies is that the Fourth Amendment prevents them from holding people whose sentences have been served. In fact, there are a number of Federal courts that have made that determination, you can't hold somebody on a civil detainer request without violating the Fourth Amendment.

There is a remedy to that: get a warrant like anybody else. The Fourth Amendment means something, and there is a remedy. Go get a warrant. I don't know why our Federal Government feels that they can upend constitutional law for their own convenience.

Now, there is a provision in this bill that I find shocking. What it says is that if local governments violate the law--violate a court order--that they cannot violate the Fourth Amendment, that they are immunized, the Federal Government is going to pay, go ahead and violate the law. I cannot remember a time when we had a bill before us that said to States and localities: go ahead, violate the law because we are going to indemnify you for the violation.

That is not the way our Federal system should work, and it is not the way those of us who believe in our oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States think that things ought to work.

Now, finally, it creates something that I think is truly astonishing: a private cause of action against a State or locality if because the detainer cannot be honored because of the Federal Court cases and a person is released and, for any reason, commits a crime that it is the locality that bears the cost, not the criminal. This is a crazy provision.

We should oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from the National Fraternal Order of Police; Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force; National League of Cities; U.S. Conference of Mayors; and the National Association of Counties in opposition to this bill.

National Fraternal Order of Police,

Washington, DC, 27 June 2017.

Hon. Paul D. Ryan,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Kevin O. McCarthy,

Majority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,

Minority Whip, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Speaker and Representatives McCarthy, Pelosi and

Hoyer: I am writing on behalf of the members of the Fraternal

Order of Police to reiterate the FOP's opposition to any

amendment or piece of legislation that would penalize law

enforcement agencies by withholding Federal funding or

resources from law enforcement assistance programs in an

effort to coerce a policy change at the local level. The

House will consider H.R. 3003 on the floor this week and

Section 2 of this bill would restrict the hiring program

administered by the Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services (COPS), the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance

Grant (Byrne-JAG) programs, as well as programs administered

by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The FOP has been very clear on this issue: we strongly

believe that local and State law enforcement agencies should

cooperate with their Federal counterparts. That being said,

withholding needed assistance to law enforcement agencies--

which have no policymaking role--also hurts public safety

efforts.

Local police departments answer to local civilian

government and it is the local government which enacts

statutes and ordinances in their communities. Law enforcement

officers have no more say in these matters than any other

citizen and--with laws like the Hatch Act in place--it can be

argued they have less. Law enforcement officers do not get to

pick and choose which laws to enforce, and must carry out

lawful orders at the direction of their commanders and the

civilian government that employs them. It is unjust to

penalize law enforcement and the citizens they serve because

Congress disagrees with their enforcement priorities with

respect to our nation's immigration laws.

The FOP issued a statement in January of this year

regarding the approach of the Administration on sanctuary

cities as outlined in President Trump's Executive Order. The

President recognized that it is unfair to penalize the law

enforcement agencies serving these jurisdictions for the

political decisions of local officials. It allows the U.S.

Attorney General and Secretary of the U.S. Department of

Homeland Security to make an informed decision about the

public safety impact without an automatic suspension from

Federal grant programs. In Section 2 of H.R. 3003, there is

no such discretion and it countermands the Administration's

existing policy.

The FOP opposed several bills in the previous Congress,

which were outlined in a letter to the Senate leadership, and

we will continue to work against proposals that would reduce

or withhold funding or resources from any Federal program for

local and State law enforcement. If Congress wishes to effect

policy changes in these sanctuary cities, it must find

another way to do so.

On behalf of the more than 330,000 members of the Fraternal

Order of Police, I want to urge the House to reject H.R.

3003's punitive approach and work with law enforcement to

find a better way to improve public safety in our

communities. Please feel free to contact me or my Senior

Advisor Jim Pasco in my Washington office if I can be of any

further assistance.

Sincerely,

Chuck Canterbury,

National President.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to reflect back on why localities adopt these community trust policies.

The chairman of the committee mentioned somebody in San Francisco who is suing the city. In a way, that shows the efficacy of the trust policies.

This man, Mr. Figueroa-Zarceno, was a victim of crime. His truck was stolen. He went into the police department to report that his truck was stolen. There was a removal order that was 10 or 20 years old. He has an American citizen child. He is a working person. When he went outside, he was picked up by ICE.

I think what that tells other people who are victims of crime who might have an outstanding removal order is: Don't report the crime. It is one thing if you have lost your truck. It has been stolen.

Not that I am for stealing trucks, but here is a bigger problem.

The cities of Houston and Los Angeles report a dramatic drop-off in reports of sexual violence. Why? Because immigrants are afraid to report; and not just because they might be undocumented, but they might have a sister or a next-door neighbor or a spouse who is undocumented, even if they are a citizen. So what has happened is with these threats come an unwillingness of immigrants to report crime, to be witnesses to crime, to keep our communities safe.

These stories that we have heard of the victims of crime are heartbreaking, but we are not without remedies under current law.

The most important law in our country is the Constitution. The Constitution includes the Fourth Amendment.

The Constitution is the most important law we have. We read it aloud on the first day of our Congress. It includes the Fourth Amendment, which requires probable cause and warrants. A bunch of courts have made that ruling relative to detainers.

Well, that doesn't leave the Federal Government without remedies. Get a warrant. There is not a jurisdiction in the United States that will not honor a judicial warrant. Don't blame the local police. Look to the Department of Homeland Security for why they have dropped the ball and been unwilling to take the steps that are well within their authority today to make sure if there is someone that they need, they get a warrant and they obtain that person for whatever is the next step in their process.

To somehow suggest that this misguided bill is the answer is a big mistake.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following additional letters in opposition to H.R. 3003. These are additional letters of opposition that I mentioned earlier on H.R. 3003.

June 26, 2017.

Dear Representative: We write on behalf of the Committee on

Migration of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB/

COM), and Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA) to express our

opposition to H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004.

The Catholic Church holds a strong interest in the welfare

of migrants and how our nation welcomes and treats them. Our

parishes include those with and without immigration status,

unfortunately some who have witnessed or been victims of

crime in the United States, including domestic violence,

armed robbery, and assault. We understand the importance of

fostering cooperation and information-sharing between

immigrant communities and local law enforcement.

We oppose H.R. 3003 because it would impose obligations on

local governments that we fear--and that many of them have

warned--would undermine authority and discretion of local law

enforcement. This, in turn, would hamper the ability of local

law enforcement officials to apprehend criminals and ensure

public safety in all communities.

Furthermore, Section 2 of H.R. 3003 would deny to

jurisdictions vital federal funding related to law

enforcement, terrorism, national security, immigration, and

naturalization if those jurisdictions are deemed to be non-

compliant with H.R. 3003. The Catholic service network,

including Catholic Charities, works in partnership with the

federal government on a number of Department of Justice and

Department of Homeland Security initiatives, including

disaster response and recovery, naturalization and

citizenship services, and services for the immigrant,

including victims of human trafficking, and domestic

violence. These services are incredibly valuable to the

protection and promotion of the human person and in some

instances life-saving. Cutting grants related to these

important national objectives, or threat of such cuts, is not

humane or just, nor is it in our national interest.

Also, we oppose H.R. 3004 as it would lead to an expansion

of incarceration and does not include adequate protections

for people who re-enter the U.S. for humanitarian reasons or

seek protection at the border. While H.R. 3004 makes notable

efforts to protect us from those convicted of violent

criminal offenses, the legislation goes far beyond this goal

by expanding the government's ability to prosecute illegal

re-entry cases and heightening the criminal penalties in

these cases. In an era of fiscal austerity, it is vital that

important judicial resources are efficiently utilized to

prosecute and convict the most violent offenders of violent

crimes. Expanding who is eligible to be prosecuted for entry

or re-entry as well as enhancing sentencing requirements does

not advance the common good nor will it ensure that

communities are safer. Furthermore, we are concerned that, as

introduced, H.R. 3004 would also prevent vulnerable asylum

seekers and unaccompanied children, (who have presented

themselves repeatedly at the U.S. border in the flight from

violence), from being able to access protection, and instead

face fines, imprisonment or both.

We respectfully urge you to reject these bills in favor of

a more comprehensive and humane approach to immigration

reform; an approach that upholds human dignity and family

unity and places a greater emphasis on balancing the needs

and rights of immigrants with our nation's best interests and

security.

The United States has a long and proud history of

leadership in welcoming newcomers regardless of their

circumstances and promoting the common good. We stand ready

to work with you on legislation that more closely adheres to

this tradition and appreciate your serious consideration of

our views in this regard.

Sincerely,

Most Rev. Joe Vasquez,

Bishop of Austin, Chairman, USCCB Committee on Migration.

Sr. Donna Markham, OP, PhD.,

President & CEO, Catholic Charities USA.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 414, I call up the bill (H.R. 3003) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to modify provisions relating to assistance by States, and political subdivision of States, in the enforcement of Federal immigration laws, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3003.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act. This simple, straightforward bill combats dangerous sanctuary policies that permit criminals to go free. We are all too familiar with how sanctuary policies have devastated families across the United States, and today we are taking action to prevent these senseless tragedies and save American lives.

For years, the lack of immigration enforcement and spread of sanctuary policies have cost too many lives. The Obama administration encouraged or, at the very least, turned a blind eye to jurisdictions nationwide that implemented sanctuary policies designed to prevent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from being able to effectively enforce Federal law. Foolhardy jurisdictions continue to pass legislation and implement policies aimed at stymieing and maligning Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Earlier this year, a Baltimore City Council member introduced a resolution calling on ICE to arrest only those posing a ``serious risk.'' In discussing this initiative, the council member likened ICE officers to Nazis several times. Such rhetoric is reprehensible, creating a moral equivalent between genocide and a nation exercising a fundamental right and obligation of sovereignty.

In a deeply troubling move on the other coast, San Francisco announced that it would no longer participate in the Joint Terrorism Task Force because of concerns that the task force's duties may coincide with immigration enforcement.

Sanctuary policies often focus on flouting ICE detainers, notices issued by ICE to allow it to take custody of aliens in law enforcement custody in order to initiate removal proceedings.

These irresponsible policies have led to a sharp drop in ICE's intake of aliens from criminal detention facilities, which forces ICE agents to engage in the far more time-consuming and dangerous task of picking them up on the streets. This, among other factors, led to a drop in the number of criminal aliens removed from the interior of the United States from almost 87,000 in fiscal year 2014 to approximately 63,500 the following 2 fiscal years.

We must discourage, not encourage, sanctuary policies and practices. H.R. 3003 addresses sanctuary policies and also takes great strides in clarifying Federal immigration detainer policy.

Since the 1990s, Federal law has barred jurisdictions from restricting communication with Federal immigration officials regarding immigration status; however, this provision has never been enforced. H.R. 3003 amends current law and expands this prohibition against impeding Federal law enforcement. Instead of merely focussing on communication, the bill ensures that no jurisdiction may restrict assistance or compliance with immigration enforcement.

To be clear, this bill imposes no affirmative duty to act on the part of any jurisdiction. Should a jurisdiction not comply with this provision, the jurisdiction will not be eligible for certain grant programs administered by the Department of Justice and Homeland Security. Eligibility for many of these grant programs is already predicated on compliance with this provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

This section is also in line with a recent memo by Attorney General Sessions outlining compliance with this provision as the single factor that the Justice Department will use in identifying sanctuary jurisdictions.

Regarding detainer policy, Congress has long heard that jurisdictions will not comply with ICE requests to hold individuals due to a lack of probable cause inherent in the detainer. I am pleased that H.R. 3003 provides the probable cause standards necessary to ensure that ICE only places detainers on aliens for whom they have probable cause and are deportable.

In addition, the bill mandates that ICE must take custody of the subject of a detainer within 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays. Jurisdictions who comply in good faith with detainer requests will be immune from liability associated with that detainer, and if such an action does arise, the U.S. Government will substitute itself in as the defendant. This ensures that jurisdictions do not go bankrupt defending against never-ending litigation. And in those jurisdictions that refuse to honor a detainer resulting in an alien committing a crime, the victim or victim's family will be provided with the opportunity to bring a lawsuit against that jurisdiction.

The third section of H.R. 3003 is named for Sarah Root and Grant Ronnebeck, two young people whose lives were suddenly taken by criminal aliens who remain at large today. This section was originally introduced as separate bills by Judiciary Committee

members Steve King and Andy Biggs, who worked tirelessly to bring these tragic cases to the attention of the committee and the Congress.

This section provides that aliens who are arrested or charged with serious crimes that result in death or serious bodily injury of another must be held without bond during the pendency of their removal proceedings.

In addition, aliens convicted of even one drunk driving offense will also be ineligible for bond during their removal proceedings. The latter would have prevented the August 2010 death of Sister Denise Mosier, a Catholic nun in Virginia, at the hands of a drunk driving illegal alien who was released from ICE custody on bond. These classes of individuals present a clear and present danger to society and should not be permitted to roam our communities during the pendency of their removal hearings.

The commonsense provisions of H.R. 3003 will provide better immigration enforcement and the peace of mind that no criminal will be provided sanctuary from our immigration laws.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to the gentlewoman from northern California that what is crazy is what the city of San Francisco is doing with their taxpayer dollars, since it was reported just yesterday that San Francisco taxpayers could soon pay $190,000 in a lawsuit settlement with an illegal immigrant who claimed he was reported to Federal immigration authorities in violation of the city of San Francisco's sanctuary city ordinance.

The city attorney's office confirmed this, and the settlement is expected to be confirmed by San Francisco's supervisors in future hearings.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Now, people who are murdered, people who are injured by people who are unlawfully present in the United States should have their day in court with the city of San Francisco or anyone else just as well as they are apparently willing to pay money to people who are illegally in the country because they were properly turned over to Federal authorities to be deported from this country.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire at this time how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), the chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Young).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond and point out that many, many of the victims of these crimes are Hispanic, African American, and others, and they were seated around the Cabinet table at the White House yesterday pleading for this legislation because they had lost their loved ones. They would much rather have been able to rewind the tape and be with those loved ones who were killed by people who were illegally present in the United States. The victims would never have suffered if our laws had simply been enforced.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dunn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

First, let me be clear: the only law enforcement agencies that risk losing any Federal grants because of this legislation are those agencies that, without any outside compulsion, deliberately choose to violate Federal law by outright prohibiting their law enforcement officers from voluntarily communicating with ICE and cooperating with it in the enforcement of Federal law.

Second, let me also be clear that this bill does not require State and local law enforcement agencies to comply with ICE detainers, and it does not seek to cut off any Federal grants to jurisdictions that choose not to comply.

Finally, it is a long-settled principle of constitutional law. And let me remind you that all of these law enforcement officers vowed to defend the Constitution, and the Constitution grants supremacy to Federal immigration law.

When there is a conflict with Federal immigration law, State laws that are in conflict are invalid, preempted by Federal law under the 10th Amendment. Under the 10th Amendment, State and local law enforcement agencies have no obligation to comply with unconstitutional provisions of State or local law that asks them to violate title 8, United States Code, section 1373.

Then, again, getting back to the amazing news that we have, the city of San Francisco has just agreed to pay $190,000 to an illegal alien because the San Francisco sheriff complied with an ICE detainer and turned the alien over to ICE, apparently in violation of San Francisco policy. That individual, under Federal law, because he was the victim of a crime, will be eligible to apply for a U visa.

Respect for the rule of law is the way to keep communities safe. Respect for the rule of law is the way to make sure that people like Kate Steinle are not murdered in the city of San Francisco, as we have heard of other murders all during the debate today, by people who are unlawfully present in the United States. Therefore, they are all preventable crimes.

Law enforcement in this country needs to cooperate. Most law enforcement officers want that to be done. Let's support them, let's support this legislation, and make sure that the rule of law is upheld.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is quite correct: everyone deserves to feel safe.

Kate Steinle deserved to feel safe when she was walking down the pier with her father in San Francisco, when she was killed.

Not enacting this legislation endangers public safety, not the opposite, as those on the other side have argued.

How would you trust local government officials, who have instructed their law enforcement officers to not cooperate with Federal law enforcement officers to take dangerous criminals off of our streets, when this motion to recommit would say: ``Oh, they will have to certify that such compliance would endanger public safety and then the law wouldn't apply?''

It is circular reasoning.

The nonenforcement of immigration laws has led to the bolstering of sanctuary jurisdiction policies in communities throughout the United States. These policies hamper the enforcement of Federal law and do nothing to truly promote trust between law enforcement and U.S. citizens.

This bill provides a commonsense approach to fixing the damage caused by sanctuary policies without mandating any affirmative duty. In order to be in compliance with section 1373 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended in this bill, States and localities have no affirmative duties to act. They have no obligations to cooperate or communicate, or even engage with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at any level.

Instead, they simply may not affirmatively restrict a government entity, including law enforcement, from cooperating or communicating with ICE.

So I am shocked that so many on the other side of the aisle view compliance with this provision as a condition for eligibility for certain grant programs as outlandish. This is not a novel concept. And compliance with section 1373 is already a condition of eligibility for these grant programs.

As for detainers, H.R. 3003 creates the probable cause standard that so many have argued was lacking for so long. Once enacted, States and localities can look to Federal law to receive clarification on what probable cause standard is employed before a detainer request is placed.

To further aid jurisdictions, the threat of expensive and time- consuming frivolous litigation is abated by providing immunity for jurisdictions that exercise good faith in honoring a detainer.

Finally, this bill ensures that dangerous criminal aliens convicted of drunk driving or not yet convicted of very serious crimes are prevented from freely walking the streets of our communities during their removal hearings. This bill is a strong first step in ensuring that our immigration laws are enforced.

I urge my colleagues to vote down this motion to recommit, to vote for the base bill, and to send a message that sanctuary policies will not be tolerated so that the rule of law will prevail.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I venture to say that none one of us who comes to this floor doubts that any local law enforcement, our neighbors, do any second-guessing to arrest drunk drivers, murderers, and others, and that they are held to the high calling of justice. I do not want to be associated with being mild-mannered and weak on those who would do serious harm, kill, and maim, no matter who they are. That is not this debate.

This debate is whether or not this bill interferes with the legitimate enforcement of the law and whether or not it takes away the mercy that we are known for in the United States. Let me tell you why.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Fraternal Order of Police--which, by no means, is shy about enforcing the law-- writing to oppose this legislation, saying that local police departments answer to local civilian government, and it is the local government which enacts statutes and ordinances.

National Fraternal Order

of Police,

Washington, DC, 27 June 2017.

Hon. Paul D. Ryan,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Kevin O. McCarthy,

Majority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,

Minority Whip, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Speaker and Representatives McCarthy, Pelosi and

Hoyer: I am writing on behalf of the members of the Fraternal

Order of Police to reiterate the FOP's opposition to any

amendment or piece of legislation that would penalize law

enforcement agencies by withholding Federal funding or

resources from law enforcement assistance programs in an

effort to coerce a policy change at the local level. The

House will consider H.R. 3003 on the floor this week and

Section 2 of this bill would restrict the hiring program

administered by the Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services (COPS), the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance

Grant (Byrne-JAG) programs, as well as programs administered

by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The FOP has been very clear on this issue: we strongly

believe that local and State law enforcement agencies should

cooperate with their Federal counterparts. That being said,

withholding needed assistance to law enforcement agencies--

which have no policymaking role--also hurts public safety

efforts.

Local police departments answer to local civilian

government and it is the local government which enacts

statutes and ordinances in their communities. Law enforcement

officers have no more say in these matters than any other

citizen and--with laws like the Hatch Act in place--it can be

argued they have less. Law enforcement officers do not get to

pick and choose which laws to enforce, and must carry out

lawful orders at the direction of their commanders and the

civilian government that employs them. It is unjust to

penalize law enforcement and the citizens they serve because

Congress disagrees with their enforcement priorities with

respect to our nation's immigration laws.

The FOP issued a statement in January of this year

regarding the approach of the Administration on sanctuary

cities as outlined in President Trump's Executive Order. The

President recognized that it is unfair to penalize the law

enforcement agencies serving these jurisdictions for the

political decisions of local officials. It allows the U.S.

Attorney General and Secretary of the U.S. Department of

Homeland Security to make an informed decision about the

public safety impact without an automatic suspension from

Federal grant programs. In Section 2 of H.R. 3003, there is

no such discretion and it countermands the Administration's

existing policy.

The FOP opposed several bills in the previous Congress,

which were outlined in a letter to the Senate leadership, and

we will continue to work against proposals that would reduce

or withhold funding or resources from any Federal program for

local and State law enforcement. If Congress wishes to effect

policy changes in these sanctuary cities, it must find

another way to do so.

On behalf of the more than 330,000 members of the Fraternal

Order of Police, I want to urge the House to reject H.R.

3003's punitive approach and work with law enforcement to

find a better way to improve public safety in our

communities.

Sincerely,

Chuck Canterbury,

National President.

Law enforcement officers have to be able to abide by the law. It is unjust to penalize law enforcement and the citizens they serve because Congress disagrees with the enforcement priorities with respect to our Nation's immigration laws. And they are right. But they also say that they need to build trust in our communities.

This bill destroys community trust. It also penalizes hardworking governments of mayors and county leaders who are, in fact, trying to run the government and ensure that victims of domestic violence and crime, even as immigrants, are able to be treated in a manner where justice is had.

What about the National Sheriffs' Association or the Texas Police Chiefs in Texas' major cities who indicate that this bill will serve no good and no good can come to a similar bill in the States?

Let me say to you, I stand with the Catholic church, and I am not Catholic. What are our values? This church opposes the idea of our values.

Let me be very clear as I close. We are doing the sanctuary cities bill, but I want to know about the integrity of this place.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3003, the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,'' which requires state and local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, expands DHS detainer authority, and expands detention authority.

I oppose this bill mainly because it directly violates the Constitution of the United States.

If H.R. 3003 were to become law, it will coerce states and localities to cooperate with immigration enforcement, it will hurt victims and witnesses to crimes, and ultimately make communities less safe, which directly contravenes the stated and alleged goals of this bill.

Police Chiefs across the nation are responding to less disturbances, not because crime is magically disappearing, but because immigrant communities are afraid to report them out of fear of being targeted.

H.R. 3003 will completely strip state and local jurisdictions of their ability to enact common-sense policies that breed respect and trust and turn local law enforcement into an auxiliary arm of the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

To ensure compliance, this bill coerces states and localities by imposing penalties that will deny federal funding for critical law enforcement, national security, drug treatment, and crime victim initiatives.

This divisive and vindictive administrative policy abridges the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states:

``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.''

H.R. 3003 also violates the Fourth Amendment's proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures in respect to the changes it makes to DHS's detainer authority.

It expands upon current DHS detainer practice by broadening the ways in which DHS can determine it has probable cause to issue a detainer and it significantly expands the time an individual may be held by law enforcement.

The Supreme Court has stated that the Fourth Amendment requires a judicial finding of probable cause, usually within 48 hours of arrest.

H.R. 3003, however, allows law enforcement to hold a person up to 96 hours before DHS takes custody, and there is no mention of when the person will even see an immigration judge.

H.R. 3003 compounds these constitutional violations by eliminating the ability for a detained individual to obtain an independent, individualized review of his or her bond determination by a neutral decision-maker.

This bill also authorizes DHS to detain individuals in removal proceedings without time limitation and it expands the categories of individuals who would be subject to such a detention on a mandatory basis.

These provisions make it substantially more difficult, if not impossible, for individuals to obtain release on bond while removal proceedings are pending, thus increasing detention costs and separating families while they seek to litigate their immigration cases.

H.R. 3003 is nothing but an anti-immigrant, enforcement-only proposal that represents another step in Trump's mass deportation plan.

Mr. Speaker, rather than forcing state and local officials into a one-size-fits-all federal enforcement scheme, Congress and the administration should enact legislation and adopt policies that integrate unauthorized immigrants into our communities--approaches that the American public supports by a wide margin.

For these reasons, I join with local law enforcement chiefs and faith community leaders in denouncing and opposing this mean-spirited, ill- considered, and un-American legislation.

I end, Mr. Speaker, by apologizing to Mika Brzezinski, to the press, for the horrible words that were said about a bleeding face.

There is no way that we can entrust this law or any other laws to this President of the United States. He has lost the trust, and I will vote for nothing until he steps down.