Acquitted Conduct Reform Act of 2018

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. President, it is with a renewed sense of purpose that I reintroduce my resolution on the Emoluments Clause. It is a resolution intended to uphold the values and strictures of one of our most sacred documents. I am referring, of course, to the Constitution, the instrument that, in but a short time, President-elect Donald Trump will take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend.

Our Founding Fathers could not have been clearer that any Federal office holder of the United States must never be put in a position where he or she could be influenced by a foreign governmental actor. It was a concern made explicit by Alexander Hamilton's writings in Federalist No. 22, in which he noted examples of republics that had been ruthlessly dismembered by their hostile neighbors who had paralyzed the victim republic by bribing its officers and officials.

The Founding Fathers addressed this grave concern by placing the Emoluments Clause within the Constitution as an explicit bar on foreign corruption and interference. Article I, section 9, clause 8 of the United States Constitution declares that:

No title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:

And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under

them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of

any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind

whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Longstanding precedent has made it plain that the President of the United States, as the head of the executive branch of the government, clearly occupies an ``office of profit or trust''. As such, the Emoluments Clause clearly applies to and constrains whomever holds the office of the Presidency.

Past American presidents have recognized the danger of foreign corruption and interference, or merely the perception of corruption and interference, and have accordingly taken great pains to avoid even the appearance of impropriety with regard to their personal wealth and investments, ensuring that such investments never interfere with performing their duties as President of the United States. Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush all had their assets placed into blind trust while they were President. To fulfill his promises of greater government transparency, President Obama went even further and invested the vast majority of his funds in U.S. Treasury bonds.

The President-elect has claimed he will ``absolutely sever'' his ties to the Trump Organization, which has financial interests around the world and negotiates and concludes transactions with foreign states, as well as entities that are extensions of foreign states. We have a constitutional duty to ensure that he does. It is easy to imagine circumstances in which a foreign government will want to give President Trump a personal gift through his businesses with the intent to curry favor with him and seek to influence his decisions in ways that benefit them, instead of the American people--precisely the danger our Founding Fathers sought to protect against with the Emoluments Clause.

This is not an esoteric argument about rules that do not affect real people. Put simply, the American public has a right to know that the President of the United States is always acting in their best interest, and not take the risk that his actions are influenced by some benefit or gift from a foreign government like Russia or China. The citizens of this country need to know that when the President of the United States is making decisions about potential trade agreements, sending troops into war, or spending America's great resources, those actions are motivated by the public interest, and not because they might advance or harm

the President's private pecuniary interests.

We should be concerned when the President-elect is connected to an organization that has dealings with countries and entities that are not interested in distinguishing between doing business with President Trump and the profit-making organization that bears his name. The President-elect's failure thus far to dispose of his business interests in a comprehensive fashion has left this door wide open, and we are already seeing indications that foreign companies and businesses are beginning to take advantage. Kuwait's National Day event, which has traditionally been held at the Four Seasons in Washington, D.C., was moved to the Trump International Hotel, allegedly because of pressure-- or perhaps merely a suggestion--from the President-elect's associates. Similarly, Bahrain has chosen to schedule an event to take place at the Trump International Hotel.

News reports suggest that one day after a phone call between President-elect Trump and the President of Argentina, permits under review for the Trump building in Buenos Aires were suddenly approved. In China, just days after the presidential election, Donald Trump scored a legal victory in a decade-long trademark dispute over the right to use the Trump name for real estate agent services in commercial and residential properties in China. The timing of these actions is interesting, to put it mildly.

I sincerely regret the necessity of reintroducing this resolution. Just after Thanksgiving, when President-elect Trump held a press conference to state that on December 15, 2016, he would make an announcement about his future with the Trump Organization, I publicly said how encouraged I was to see the President-elect's positive response. When I first introduced this resolution, my intent was to create an opportunity for the President-elect to act and remove this as an issue, so that he could put aside any appearance of impropriety and devote himself to good work on behalf of the American people. That is why I was disappointed when Mr. Trump abruptly canceled his December 15 announcement--and, as of today, he has not yet rescheduled it. This issue is far too critical to kick the can down the road, or to ignore, before an incipient violation of the Constitution becomes an actual violation.

Even before Mr. Trump's cancellation of his December 15 announcement, I was deeply concerned by statements he and his lawyers made with regard to the disposition of his numerous business interests. Mr. Trump's lawyers had initially announced that the Trump Organization would be placed into a ``blind trust'' managed by Donald Trump's older children. That arrangement is, unfortunately, by its terms the complete opposite of an actual blind trust. An actual blind trust is an arrangement which the official has no control over, will receive no communications about, and will have no knowledge of the identity of the specific assets being held, and in which the trust's manager operates independently of the owner.

Around the same time President-elect Trump cancelled his December 15th announcement, he tweeted another idea for disposition of his businesses, stating that ``[t]wo of my children, Don and Eric, plus executives, will manage them. No new deals will be done during my term(s) in office''. Let me be absolutely clear: the arrangement tweeted by Mr. Trump is not sufficient and is hardly independent. Mr. Trump would be well-aware of the specific assets held, and he could receive communications about and take actions to affect the value of those assets. The idea that President-elect Trump's children, who are listed as members of his transition team and have already been present at meetings or phone calls with foreign leaders, can ever be truly ``independent managers'' is simply not a credible resolution of this concern.

This inadequate suggested arrangement is not a blind trust and will not ensure compliance with the Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution. Indeed, numerous legal and constitutional experts, including Richard Painter, a former adviser to George W. Bush, have made clear that such an arrangement will leave the President-elect with a personal financial interest in businesses that collect foreign government payments and benefits. The notion that the American people should be satisfied by an unbinding promise that no new deals will be pursued--a promise that does not define what constitutes a ``deal'' and which can be reneged on at any time--does not pass the laugh test.

I must admit, I have also been quite disturbed and disappointed by the recent excuses and suggestions by surrogate speakers and supporters of the President-elect as to why no action need be taken and, indeed, by statements the President-elect has made himself. President-elect Trump has tweeted, [p]rior to the election it was well known that I have interests in properties all over the world.'' This is undoubtedly true. But the American people, in voting for a candidate, cannot--and, in fact, would not--want to excuse a potential future violation of the Constitution by that candidate. Indeed, I would say that President- elect Trump has this idea backwards. Prior to the election, he was well aware of the fact that he had interests in unique properties all over the world. Since the President-elect has referred to himself as ``a constitutionalist,'' he must have known of the importance of complying with the Constitution by severing his foreign business connections in advance of his inauguration, which makes his continued failure and delay on this front all the more inexplicable.

On November 22nd, President-elect Trump stated, ``The law's totally on my side, meaning, the president can't have a conflict of interest.'' This regrettable statement selectively picks facts and shows a troubling disregard for the Constitution and for the duties owed to the American people. While the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, and Federal judges may be granted specific, limited exemptions from conflicts of interest so that they may act and carry out their duties, that law does not supersede the Constitution nor, frankly, have anything to do with the very specific provisions of the Emoluments Clause, which are intended to prevent foreign governmental financial influence over the President.

Even as some of the President-elect's most trusted surrogates have acknowledged that the potential ethics challenges facing President- elect Trump are ``a very real problem,'' they have persisted in arguing that Mr. Trump is somehow exempt from constitutional strictures, and even from the temptation of corruption itself, by virtue of his great wealth. For example, former Speaker Gingrich has claimed ``that this is a new situation we've never seen before, and the rules [that] were written for people who were dramatically less successful literally do not work,'' while Mr. Trump's leading candidate to head the administration's Council of Economic Advisors has claimed that ``[w]ealthy folks have no need to steal or engage in corruption.'' Really? That is a transparently false idea that one does not have to look very far to disprove. We need only glance at the countries where the Trump Organization has done business--places like Russia, Azerbaijan, Argentina, and Nigeria--to find numerous examples of already-wealthy government officials who have used their positions to lie, cheat, extort, and further enrich themselves and their families at the expense of the people they are supposed to be serving.

It was the enduring wisdom of our Founders to recognize that America is not magically immune from the corruption problems in other countries, and that not all men are angels. This is why we place our trust in the Constitution, not in individuals. A man with more wealth and extensive foreign holdings than prior presidents is, by an order of magnitude, more vulnerable to foreign corruption and interference than any president before him. The Emoluments Clause has greater bearing on Mr. Trump's presidency than his predecessors, not less.

No man can gain such wealth and power that he outgrows the limits of our Constitution. John Adams said it best: ``We are a government of laws, and not of men.'' No matter our political or partisan sympathies, we all recognize that the Constitution is the law of the land, and that when the needs and ambitions of any man conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution must win out.

It has also been suggested by some of Donald Trump's supporters that the

Emoluments Clause does not actually apply to the office of the Presidency. Not only does this conflict with longstanding understanding of the Emoluments Clause in the Executive Branch, it contravenes both the strict interpretation of the plain words of the Constitution, as well as the traditional values and practices adopted by previous presidents.

To get around the ethics challenges facing Mr. Trump, it has been suggested by the President-elect's supporters that a panel of five ``experts'' regularly monitor the Trump Organization businesses and tell the President ``don't go over these bounds''. It has even been suggested that the President-elect can simply sidestep ethics issues that clearly violate the law by pardoning advisors ``if anyone finds them to have behaved against the rules''. These 'ideas' are non- starters that cut dangerously against the plain intent of the Emoluments Clause. I am afraid they show a disregard for the values of our Constitution.

The solution to this problem is simple, not complex, and is set forth by my resolution: President-elect Trump has only to follow the precedents established by prior presidents and convert his assets to simple, conflict-free holdings; adopt blind trusts managed by truly independent trustees with no relationship to Mr. Trump or his businesses; or to take other, equivalent measures. This solution also has the benefit of having been successfully implemented by every modem president before Mr. Trump.

This resolution and its aims should not be viewed through the distorting prism of politics. I want the Trump administration to have the support from Congress to succeed on behalf of the American people. Nevertheless, I believe that Congress has an institutional, constitutional obligation to ensure that the President of the United States, whoever that person may be, does not violate our Constitution, acts lawfully, and is discharging the obligations of the office based on the broad interests of the American people and not his or her own narrow, personal interests.

Despite the late hour--just days before the inauguration--it is still possible for President-elect Trump to live up to the values of the Constitution, give the American people the transparency they deserve, and completely sever his relationship with the Trump Organization before he takes the oath of office on January 20, 2017. To do so would avoid a constitutional crisis that would not serve the best interests of the President, Congress, or the American people. Therefore, I ask for prompt, bipartisan support to advance this vital resolution.

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting issue with the canvas in the back of the entire immigration laws that need to be addressed.

This body--not the body at the other end of the building, this body-- didn't have the guts to address it 4 years ago, 3 years ago, 2 years ago, nor this year. This is something that we need to address, even though it is not the bill itself.

I am a strong supporter of law enforcement. As co-chair of the Law Enforcement Caucus, I rise in total opposition to this bill and the rule. Here is what the misguided goal of this bill would do:

You are going to prove a point by penalizing law enforcement for immigration policies politicians in their city have to implement. That is what you want to do. So it absolves us down here in Washington.

This bill threatens the central Federal funding streams for law enforcement. You have heard all of those programs that are being endangered. Any grant administered by the Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security that is substantially related to law enforcement, terrorism, national security, immigration, or naturalization you are putting on the chopping block if this bill becomes law.

This bill would not make our communities safer. In fact, it undermines public safety.

The funding this bill puts at risk allows local police departments to purchase equipment and hire and provide training for officers. This actually jeopardizes the security--read my lips--of communities in order to perpetuate a false narrative about immigrants.

I just received a letter from the New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association. I think it says it better than anything I could say. It says: ``Politics should not interfere with the safety of our members or our ability to do our job.''

The police are telling us that, and you are asking them to go out and do the job of protecting our citizens day in and day out--which we all are, I hope--and then you are telling them: But I am sorry, because we have a disagreement on this issue, you are going to suffer the consequences.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association.

New Jersey State Policemen's

Benevolent Association, Inc.,

Woodbridge, NJ, June 28, 2017.

Re H.R. 3003.

Hon. William Pascrell, Jr.,

Paterson, NJ.

Dear Congressman Pascrell: The New Jersey State Policemen's

Benevolent Association (NJSPBA) represents over 33,000 law

enforcement officers throughout our state. It is no secret

that law enforcement officers risk their own safety every day

to keep our

communities safe. And as a strong supporter of law

enforcement on the floor of the U.S. House of

Representatives, we would like to thank you for all your

efforts on behalf of the men and women that serve within the

law enforcement community.

It is our understanding that this week the House is voting

on H.R. 3003, the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,'' which

adds additional obstacles to funding for the hiring of

additional police officers in certain communities throughout

our state. Specifically, the bill restricts municipalities

from receiving grants administered by the Department of

Justice or the Department of Homeland Security if municipal

officials fail to notify the federal government with regard

to the presence of individuals as it relates to information

regarding citizenship or immigration status.

While we strongly agree that state and local law

enforcement should work closely with federal law enforcement,

cutting off funding for law enforcement to already

underfunded and understaffed police departments and law

enforcement entities undermines our collective efforts to

keep our members and the communities they serve safe.

Politics should not interfere with the safety of our members

or our ability to do our job.

On behalf of our membership, we appreciate your ongoing

efforts and hope you will continue to work with your

colleagues in Congress to assure funding for law enforcement

and prevent our government from punishing our membership for

something that is completely out of our control.

I am available to discuss our opposition to H.R. 3003

further, at your convenience. You can reach me at our NJSPBA

offices, if you have any questions.

Thank you for all your efforts on behalf of the men and

women of law enforcement.

Sincerely,

Patrick Colligan,

State President.

Mr. Speaker, congressional Republicans are doing that right here. They are playing politics with our Nation's security.

To quote the New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association again--these words are from the police, not me--`` . . . punishing our membership for something that is completely out of our control.''

Why are the police opposed to this legislation?

The Fraternal Order of Police you have heard about. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle like to talk the talk when it comes to supporting law enforcement until it either costs money or we are going to have to deal with the bigger factors. That is a fact.

You may laugh all you want, but that is a fact. I can cite you chapter and verse if you want. This is no laughing matter. This is business. This is the lives of the police.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very pathetic way to look at our police officers in this country. ``If you don't like it, don't take the money.''

You must be kidding me. I urge my colleagues to find a different tactic to penalize political decisions that you don't like.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3003. This is a very positive first step toward coming to grips with an issue that has divided this country because it is causing great damage to so many Americans.

What we are talking about is not immigrant hysteria. That type of mixing legal immigrants with illegal immigrants, that is the true racism because it hurts those people who have come here legally. Now, what we have got here are legal immigrants who are being cast into the same pot as illegals, with the opposition to this bill.

People who are here legally understand that we need protection for people who are here in this country against, especially, criminals who come from overseas and illegal aliens who are criminals, at that.

Working Americans of every race, religion, and ethnic group have seen that their families are less secure, and they are even sometimes being murdered by the insane lack of action on the part of our government to protect our citizens.

Our number one responsibility is to make sure our own people, legal immigrants, and all Americans of every race, creed, and color are protected.

And what do they see?

This massive flood of illegals coming into our country, taking jobs, bidding down wages, lowering the education standards and the healthcare that most Americans rely upon.

No wonder the American people want action. But then, when they are faced with a city saying even criminals who have committed acts of aggression, murder, et cetera, upon our citizens, that we are going to let them just stay, and that there is going to be a block.

Whose side are you on is what this amendment is all about. Are we on the side of the American people? Are we on the side of those victims who work hard every day and try to raise their families; or are we on the side of a massive flow of people, many of whom, and most of whom, are good people?

Most of the people who come here, most of the people flooding here, even the illegals, are basically wonderful people. But that doesn't mean that we can bring in more than that, 1 million--

By the way, we need to understand, don't condemn America on its immigration policy. We let a million legal immigrants into our country every year, and that is more than the rest of the world combined. We can be proud of that.

But, at the same time, we have to make sure that our people are protected, that they don't lose their jobs, or they don't have to accept less money for the same work because you have got somebody here who will work for nothing.

We want to make sure when they need their healthcare, they get their healthcare. That will bankrupt our system. Are we going to have a sanctuary healthcare system, too, so anybody in the world can come here and use up our scarce health dollars?

No, it is time for us to strike a blow for the protection of Americans and legal immigrants of every race and religion and ethnic background, not to show these things. Immigrant hysteria; shame, shame, shame.