[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 116 (Thursday, July 23, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H5409-H5416]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3009, ENFORCE THE LAW FOR SANCTUARY
CITIES ACT
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 370 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 370
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3009) to
amend section 241(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
to deny assistance under such section to a State or political
subdivision of a State that prohibits its officials from
taking certain actions with respect to immigration. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Polis), pending which I yield myself such time
[[Page H5410]]
as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous materials on House Resolution 370, currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule
forward on behalf of the Rules Committee.
The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3009, the Enforce the Law
for Sanctuary Cities Act. The Rules Committee met yesterday evening and
heard testimony from both the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, in addition to
several Members interested in this important issue.
This rule brought forward by the committee is a closed rule and
provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled
by the chair and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.
We are bringing this rule forward today because both the safety of
American people and the integrity of our system of laws depends on its
passage. No institution, body, or agency has the right to selectively
apply the law or selectively enforce the law.
The same individuals who claim exemption from our immigration laws
demand equality under our criminal laws. Do we really want to live in a
country where an agency claims the authority to pass political judgment
on you and your circumstance to determine if the law applies to you?
This is precisely what the administration is proposing. Not only are
their actions contrary to public safety, they fundamentally undermine
the most basic concept of law.
I believe that sanctuary cities are unacceptable. That is why I was a
part of the effort to prohibit them in Georgia and why I am so
committed to continuing this fight here in Congress.
The tragic and preventible death of Kate Steinle in San Francisco at
the hands of an illegal immigrant is the latest example of why we have
to address sanctuary cities and enforce the law. Hear me, Mr. Speaker.
Kate is not the only victim.
According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, of 74,911 Federal crimes
in fiscal year 2014, 27,505, or 36 percent, were committed by those
here illegally.
During an 8-month period in 2014, sanctuary cities released more than
8,000 criminal illegal immigrant offenders the U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement was seeking to deport.
According to a new report released by the Center for Immigration
Studies, of these 8,000 released, approximately 1,900 were arrested for
successive crimes during the 8-month timeframe.
I believe San Francisco's hands are soaked in blood now. They choose
to protect criminal illegal aliens over an innocent American woman.
Beyond the public safety threat posed by sanctuary cities, the
Federal Government has the responsibility to be good stewards of tax
dollars entrusted to them by hard-working Americans.
There is no reasonable explanation, in law or policy, as to why the
Federal Government should send money to cities in the form of grants or
reimbursements to help them enforce the law when they are blatantly
ignoring the law.
It is a waste of taxpayer money to send this money to States for
purposes of law enforcement when they clearly aren't using it for that
purpose.
The situation before us today is one dangerous political hypocrisy.
The administration has vocally stated immigration law lies with the
Federal Government and the Federal Government alone.
In fact, their entire case against Arizona was premised on that
point. That was when States were trying to enforce the law.
When States don't enforce the law, essentially playing into the
administration's failure to enforce the administration's claims, there
is nothing they can do. It is sort of an interesting proposition.
Last week I questioned the Secretary of Homeland Security about the
issues of sanctuary cities. The Secretary stated there was nothing that
DHS could do and that he didn't feel it was productive to try and force
the cities to cooperate.
The administration jumped all over States that help enforce
immigration laws, including suing Arizona for enacting laws to protect
its borders and its citizens.
I ask: Where is the outrage by the administration over San
Francisco's failure to follow the law? Where is the lawsuit?
It is not surprising that the administration is only outraged when
States are acting in a manner that doesn't meet their political goals.
DHS refuses to make sanctuary cities comply with the law while, at
the same time, DOJ is now requiring law enforcement in Maricopa County,
Arizona, to provide services in Spanish to jail inmates and to have
Federal oversight for all workforce enforcement raids. This kind of
political hypocrisy is the kind that has already cost the life of Kate
Steinle.
The administration wants a nonenforcement policy, but it is up to
Congress to make the administration follow the law. That is exactly why
the Rules Committee is bringing forward this rule and H.R. 3009.
Sanctuary cities ignore and shield illegal immigrants at the expense
of law-abiding Americans, and the administration, through its failure
to defend and enforce this law, is complicit.
Listen, Mr. Speaker, I believe that sanctuary cities should be
descriptions of cities that provide safe and secure places for law-
abiding citizens, not the definition for cities choosing to provide
safety for those flaunting our immigration laws.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying
bill. The rule here today provides for consideration of H.R. 3009, a
bill that I strongly oppose that wouldn't even solve the problem that
it attempts to here today.
First, a little bit about the process. This is a closed process that
reflects the practice of shutting down debate on the House floor.
We should be talking about how to protect Americans like Kathryn
Steinle. Instead, we are limited to debating a bill that, even if it
had been the law, would not have affected this case or others like it
or secured our borders. We are not even allowed to introduce amendments
that would secure our borders here before the House floor.
We have not had a single hearing on this bill, and it has not been
marked up in committee. It simply appeared before the Judiciary
Committee.
It simply appeared before the Rules Committee yesterday fully formed.
We talked for several hours about many of its flaws there. But,
unfortunately, nevertheless, it has been advanced under this rule to
the House floor.
This bill is not a fix. It is not a solution to anything. It is a
heavy-handed way to attack communities that are simply trying to find
solutions to what is fundamentally a Federal problem.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, dress it up however you like. It is our fault, the
institution of Congress' fault, the Federal Government's fault, that we
have failed to secure our borders.
It is the Federal Government's fault that there are 10-, 12-, 14
million people in our country illegally, some of them felon immigrants.
That is not the fault of any city or county or State.
Our law enforcement professionals--sheriffs, police chiefs--are doing
the best they can with the facts on the ground which work against them
because of this body's failure to act.
This bill before us is simply an attempt to provide a false solution
to a tragic incident, this in spite of the fact this body has refused
to bring forward a single bill to fix our broken immigration system or
secure our border.
The murder of Kathryn Steinle was a terrible tragedy. It should not
have occurred. There were so many breakages along the way and things
that could have been done to prevent it. But this action is primarily a
way to highlight our broken immigration system.
[[Page H5411]]
It is a disgrace, for instance, that our immigration enforcement
agencies dedicate significant resources to pursuing tens of thousands
of individuals with no criminal history while the enforcement of our
laws against serious felons like Mr. Lopez-Sanchez, as a result, is
limited to something like a phone call or an email from the sheriff in
San Francisco.
{time} 1030
ICE, the agency with sole authority to pursue, detain, and deport
people within our borders--an agency with a budget of more than $5
billion annually--is to blame here for its perverse allocation of
resources.
Mr. Speaker, ICE should have pursued this individual vigorously, and
ICE is responsible for the fact that this man was walking the streets
of San Francisco instead of in Mexico; but, rather than take
responsibility for this tragedy and commit to making the necessary
changes to prevent anything like this from happening in the future--
like, for instance, encapsulating the President's DACA and DAPA
programs in statute so that our limited enforcement resources can be
focused on criminal felons rather than tens of thousands of individuals
with no criminal history--instead of doing that, this body is
threatening local law enforcement with reducing their funds to keep
communities safe.
Mr. Speaker, this bill before us would do even less to address this
issue in a meaningful way. This legislation undermines local law
enforcement, tramples the 10th Amendment to our Constitution, and
directly undermines the authority and judgment exercised by local law
enforcement agencies that are simply trying to do their job as best
they can in light of a Federal failure--a Federal failure--to deport
felon immigrants, a Federal failure to secure our borders, and a
Federal failure to establish enforcement priorities in statute.
These decisions behind policing communities and ensuring public
safety are made by those in those jurisdictions. We shouldn't have
reactionary politicians in Washington threatening to cut off funding to
sheriffs and police chiefs to make their communities less safe and lead
to more victims of felons, both immigrant and American.
That is why this bill is opposed by the Conference of Mayors, Law
Enforcement Immigration Task Force, the Fraternal Order of Police, and
many other law enforcement professionals.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that article I, section 8 of the
Constitution, which we began the session of Congress by reading, makes
it clear that it is the Federal Government's responsibility to create
and enforce immigration policy.
No matter how much this body tries to pass its failure on to cities,
States, and counties, it will always come back here because only the
Federal Government can secure our borders, only the Federal Government
can establish enforcement priorities in statute, only the Federal
Government can provide a pathway to citizenship, and only the Federal
Government deports felon immigrants.
Despite this, however, Congress has displayed a complete and total
unwillingness to even begin the debate on fixing our broken immigration
system, instead choosing to threaten local law enforcement for our own
failures in this town, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Speaker, I tried to reinitiate this debate just yesterday in the
Rules Committee by introducing an amendment to this bill that would
have allowed us to address the systemic problems by considering
comprehensive immigration reform, including border security.
Unfortunately, on a party-line vote, my measure was voted down and,
therefore, in favor of maintaining this status quo.
Instead of having a meaningful debate on how to make our immigration
system work in our favor and keep Americans safe by keeping immigrant
felons off the street and securing our border, the Republicans are
instead insisting to push this bill through the House, threatening
local law enforcement without hearing, committee debate, or even the
opportunity to amend it with good ideas from Democrats or Republicans.
Felons and egregious immigration violators like Mr. Lopez-Sanchez
should not be free to walk the streets of this country, but until this
body gets serious about securing our border and creating enforceable
laws with the resources to enforce them, people like Mr. Lopez-Sanchez
will walk free and will continue to harm Americans.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will effectively require local
enforcement of immigration laws, effectively trying to foist off our
responsibilities on beleaguered local law enforcement agencies who,
with their limited resources, are making the best judgments they can to
keep their communities safe.
Federal courts have found that the DHS detainer policies violate the
Constitution. Because ICE detainers request that a person be held in
local custody for up to 2 days beyond the time they would otherwise be
released, Federal courts have concluded that ICE detainers cause a new
period of detention, and they are unconstitutional.
ICE has flouted this requirement for years, issuing detainers based
on investigative interests alone; and these dragnet detainer issuances
practices have caused the detention of countless people who were not
criminal felons, felon aliens, who are not removable--even U.S.
citizens in some cases.
The Federal courts finally caught up with this practice and found
them to be unconstitutional and are holding local agencies under civil
liability for honoring detainer requests from ICE.
In Colorado, for example, the Arapahoe County sheriff was forced to
pay $30,000 to a victim of domestic violence who was, herself, arrested
when she called the police for help. She was then held in the Arapahoe
County jail at the request of Federal immigration authorities for 3
days after a judge had ordered her release. Another case in Jefferson
County Sheriff's Office was forced to settle for $40,000.
Now, detainers are a form of communication and are therefore, in a
reasonable reading of this proposed law, included. Effectively, you are
presenting impossible choices to local law enforcement. You are telling
them, on the one hand, subject yourself to civil liability or subject
yourself to the cutting off of Federal grants to support your efforts.
Either way, Mr. Speaker, it is a loss for the safety of American
citizens and a loss for law enforcement, all because this body fails to
own up to the fact that only we can fix the problem; only we can secure
the border; only we can replace our immigration system with a
comprehensive approach that makes sense and has the resources to
enforce it, the Federal resources to enforcement.
This isn't some theoretical matter that some intellectually curious
law review cooked up. Jurisdictions in my district have been found
civilly liable for enforcing detainers and been forced to pay. Lawsuits
are being filed, and local law enforcement agencies that serve as
proxies for ICE are losing.
If you want to tell cities in my State to enforce unconstitutional
policies, why not take on the liability federally? Will this body pay
the settlement from the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office? Will this
body pay the settlement of $30,000 from the Arapahoe County sheriff?
The Republicans are making it clear that they don't have a plan to
keep people like Kathryn Steinle safe. They don't have a plan to secure
our borders. They don't have a plan to address our broken immigration
system. This bill today is just another piece of evidence of this
body's, this institution's failure to keep Americans safe.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to hit a couple of points here. It was
stated by my friend from Colorado about the issue of San Francisco and
pursuing individuals, such as this one who committed murder; and the
fact is ICE did ask for him to be held. San Francisco made the choice
to let him go, which is leading us to the issue today before us, and we
want to continue.
Also, this one assertion that this is a false solution debate--when
is it a false solution to actually have to be here and discuss actually
enforcing the law? I think that is exactly what we are doing here. If
you choose to enforce the law, that is what your proper role should be,
and if not, these are the penalties that will be put in place.
[[Page H5412]]
I think we will continue this process, Mr. Speaker, and at this time,
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my distinguished colleague on the Rules
Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule. This process
is an absolutely outrage. I also rise in strong opposition to H.R.
3009.
Mr. Speaker, along with all of my colleagues and every American, my
heart goes out to the family of Kathryn Steinle. The murder of any
innocent person is a tragedy, and after each such heinous crime, we
always ask ourselves: Could this have been avoided? Could we have done
something differently?
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3009 paints itself as a remedy to Kathryn Steinle's
death, but it does nothing--absolutely nothing--to address how to
improve communication between our law enforcement, immigration,
prosecutors, and penal institutions, nor does it improve the protocols
and practices of how decisions are made on the release or transfer of a
prisoner against whom ICE has lodged a detainer request.
Instead, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3009 chose to penalize local law
enforcement agencies and strip them of their Federal grants and funding
when they prioritize working with immigrant communities in order to
keep neighborhoods, cities, and towns safe.
Republicans would rather demonize these cities and local law
enforcement agencies and force them to squander scarce local resources
on immigration enforcement, instead of local policing. In effect, Mr.
Speaker, H.R. 3009 will make our cities and communities less safe,
rather than more secure.
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 our public safety.
H.R. 3009 is opposed by the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the
Fraternal Order of Police, the National Criminal Justice Association,
the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and
the National League of Cities; all of them strongly oppose this bill.
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 views
of anti-immigrant extremists. It is meant to demonize all immigrants as
criminals.
It means to punish any city, any police officer, any sheriff, and any
cop on the beat who challenges the Republican anti-immigrant orthodoxy
of ``hate them all'' and ``deport them all.'' Deport the DREAMers;
deport the parents of U.S. citizens; deport children fleeing violence--
deport, deport, deport.
Mr. Speaker, this House continues to wait and wait for the Republican
majority to show some leadership and bring up a comprehensive
immigration reform bill. It has been more than 2 years since the Senate
passed a strong, bipartisan immigration reform bill; and we are still
waiting for the House Republicans to act.
What we need is a way to bring 11 million of our neighbors, friends,
colleagues, small-business owners, and hard-working residents out of
the shadows. Let them register, be documented, and not fear talking
with the police. Let us recognize their achievements and contributions
to the American way of life.
This bill had no hearings, no markup, and no input from local law
enforcement--no regular order. In fact, in the topsy-turvy world of the
Republican House, the Judiciary Committee's Immigration and Border
Security Subcommittee is holding its first hearing on this topic
today--this morning--when this bill is already here on the House floor
for debate and voted today.
No, Mr. Speaker, this bill is just more of the same, old, divisive
Republican anti-immigrant formula. America is better than this, and I
urge my colleagues to reject this closed rule and to oppose the
underlying bill.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise and just, again, part of this is really--and even
if you look at the Administration's view on this bill and others, it is
almost an Alice in Wonderland effect. What is up is down and down is
up. We are looking at this, that enforcing the law hurts enforcement of
the law and that it is backwards.
Now, there are issues that need to be addressed. One of the issues is
that we have a communication problem. I agree. We have got a
communication problem. When they say, ``Hold him; he is going to be
deported; he is deportable; he is not someone we want on our streets''
and San Francisco and other sanctuary cities choose to release him,
that is a communication problem. I will agree with my friends across
the aisle on that point.
To say that punishing views--how about enforcing the law? The last
time I sat in my law classes, we didn't enforce views; we enforced
laws. I think that is what we are bringing up here.
I can't let it pass. I talked about this before, and as a Member who
believes that there are immigration issues that we need to address and
as a member of the Judiciary Committee--which, by the way, has held
hearings dealing with this subject--in fact, just last week, the
Secretary of DHS was in. I questioned him directly about this, and it
is amazing. He has no real opinion about sanctuary cities as he told me
in his testimony.
I find that rather amazing in that he would say that there would be a
problem not enforcing these laws, and when I asked about other laws
that we want to enforce--is it okay for cities to turn their back on
those laws--there is not an opinion there.
We have talked about this. We have had immigration hearings. We have
begun the process of marking up legislation to secure our communities,
to secure our borders, and to do those things; but before we start
throwing in the nature of saying there is all wrong with the Republican
majority on something that we have not done, I just want to go back and
remind--I am still one who at the time was out there watching the
proceedings from my home in the State of Georgia, where we were doing
everything we could to balance the needs of our State and our economy
during shutdown and during a depression, recession--whatever you want
to call it--and we were trying to balance budgets, and we were watching
this issue up here, but what I saw was that we are told today we are
waiting for Republicans and the Republicans have all this bad agenda.
At the same point, when this body was controlled by my friends across
the aisle, when the other body across the way--the Senate--was
controlled by my friends across the aisle, and when the administration
was new and in their early stages of developing their strategy for
solving all the world's problems, what they chose to do was wreck
health care and to work against community bankers. They chose that.
{time} 1045
They chose not to do comprehensive immigration reform. They chose to
use it as a political issue and a political pawn. They chose not to
bring this up.
When you want to bring it up, let's shine the light brightly. Let's
bring it up and shine the light brightly on both sides. The world was
waiting. You managed to get a lot of other things through. You managed
to do other things that you wanted to do, but you chose not to do this.
You chose not to make this.
My question here is simply: the bill that is being brought forward,
it says enforce the law.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As the gentleman from Georgia might recall, when the Democrats
controlled the Senate last session, they did pass comprehensive
immigration reform with strong Republican and Democratic support. More
than two-thirds of the body supported securing our borders, expelling
felon immigrants, and keeping Americans safe. Had this body simply
acted on that bill, as we repeatedly tried to get them to do, we quite
likely would not be facing this tragedy that we face here today. Until
this body acts, there are likely to be more victims, more American
victims, of criminal immigrants.
It is not the fault of the Democrats. We, with the Republicans in the
Senate, put together a bill that would have
[[Page H5413]]
addressed it. It is the fault of this body, the House of
Representatives, that failed to act.
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a Statement of Administration
Policy with regard to this bill, which includes that the President's
senior advisers would recommend that he veto this bill. He then goes
into some of the same arguments we have been talking about with regard
to why we need to secure our border and grow our economy and make sure
that we can fix our broken immigration system.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 3009--Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act
(Rep. Hunter, R-CA, and 44 cosponsors)
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3009. This bill
fails to offer comprehensive reforms needed to fix the
Nation's broken immigration laws, undermines current
Administration efforts to remove the most dangerous convicted
criminals and to work collaboratively with State and local
law enforcement agencies, and threatens the civil rights of
all Americans by authorizing State and local officials to
collect information regarding any private citizen's
immigration status, at any time, for any reason, and without
justification.
The Administration continues to believe that it is critical
to fix the Nation's broken immigration system through
comprehensive commonsense legislation that builds on existing
efforts to strengthen border security, cracks down on
employers hiring undocumented workers, streamlines legal
immigration, and offers an earned path to citizenship for
undocumented immigrants to get right with the law if they
pass background checks, contribute to the Nation's economy by
paying taxes, and go to the back of the line. While the
Senate passed comprehensive legislation with strong
bipartisan support over two years ago that would do just
that, the House of Representatives failed to take any action.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, that
legislation would also grow the Nation's economy by 5.4
percent and reduce Federal deficits by nearly $850 billion
over 20 years. The Administration continues to urge the
Congress to address all of the problems with the Nation's
broken immigration system and take up commonsense legislation
that will offer meaningful solutions to those problems.
The Administration also believes the most effective way to
enhance public safety is through sensible and effective
policies that focus enforcement resources on the most
significant public safety threats. The Administration has put
in place new enforcement priorities that do just that,
focusing limited resources on the worst offenders--national
security threats, convicted criminals, gang members, and
recent border crossers. The effectiveness of these new
priorities depends on collaboration between Federal, State,
and local law enforcement. Every day, the Federal government
fosters State and local collaboration through a variety of
mechanisms, including policies, programs, and joint task
forces. The Department of Homeland Security's Priority
Enforcement Program (PEP) enables Federal immigration
enforcement to work with State and local law enforcement to
take custody of individuals who are enforcement priorities,
including public safety and national security threats, before
those individuals are released into communities. PEP is a
balanced, commonsense approach to enforcing the Nation's
immigration laws. It replaced the Secure Communities program,
which, by establishing a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to
State and local cooperation with Federal immigration
enforcement officials, discouraged some localities from
turning over dangerous individuals to DHS custody. Secure
Communities was embroiled in litigation and widely criticized
for undermining State and local community policing efforts.
PEP builds collaboration between Federal, State, and local
law enforcement that allows for the most effective
enforcement while enhancing community policing and trust. The
Congress should give PEP a chance to work, instead of
displacing that collaborative approach--which prioritizes the
worst offenders--with the coercive approach of this bill,
which makes no such differentiation.
Finally, the bill would condition Federal money on State
and local governments allowing their law enforcement
officials to gather citizenship and immigration status
information from any person at any time for any reason. The
Administration believes that such blanket authority would
threaten the civil rights of all Americans, lead to mistrust
between communities and State and local law enforcement
agencies, and impede efforts to safely, fairly, and
effectively enforce the Nation's immigration laws.
If the President were presented with H.R. 3009, his senior
advisors would recommend that he veto this bill.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the Donald Trump wing of the Republican
Party is clearly ascendant here today. It is the dominant thinking
among House Republicans.
This is the same crowd that, just back in February, threatened the
funding for Homeland Security because they were so eager to deport our
DREAMers--young people who came here as children, who have cleared a
criminal background check, who paid a fee and are already contributing
to America--because whenever they are in doubt on immigration, they
fade to the extreme right. These are the same Members of Congress who
have even gone to court to sue the President of the United States when
he prioritized the deportation of criminals over immigrant families;
and these are the same Republicans who were so fearful of a sane
discussion here, and this Congress, this House, is never a sanctuary of
sanity when it comes to immigration.
But they refuse to bring to the House floor a bipartisan bill
unanimously approved in the Homeland Security Committee to deal with
border security. If that weren't bad enough, they came back this year
with a totally partisan border security bill, and they have been afraid
to bring it to the floor because they do not want a reasoned discussion
of immigration in this House of Representatives.
Unfortunately, this Congress is also never a sanctuary from partisan
political stunts designed to capitalize on the latest tragedy, like the
tragedy that occurred in San Francisco. This bill is not about grabbing
criminals; it is about grabbing headlines. It is not about a thoughtful
debate of the best immigration and law enforcement policies for our
country; it is about scoring political points. It does so by rejecting
the expert opinion of sheriffs and police chiefs and law enforcement
experts and organizations and local mayors and leaders in the municipal
level across America who say that, to fight crime effectively, they
need to win the trust of all of the communities that they serve.
This bill is opposed by major law enforcement organizations, by
municipal government organizations. I saw at the top of the list of
those law enforcement organizations the police chief of my hometown,
who works with community policing to make our communities safe. Some
localities believe that they can better enforce the law, better keep
our communities safe, if an undocumented person who is a witness or a
victim of crime is involved with them and reporting those crimes and
helping enforce the law.
If I have to choose between Donald Trump and his extreme attitudes
embodied by colleagues here in this House today and my local law
enforcement about how to protect my family, all of our families, I
choose law enforcement. Let's reject this bad bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. DOGGETT. If they are so committed to supporting local law
enforcement, eliminating funding for the COPS program is hardly the way
to do it. We ought to be putting our dollars and our support and our
immigration laws in conformity with the law enforcement experts across
America and protect our families.
Reject this bad bill, and then do something substantive to back our
law enforcement officials.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I appreciate the argument, and this is why we have this time. But I
do want to just remind again, from my previous statement, bringing up a
bill last Congress reminds me of back when I used to coach kids in
football. There was always that struggle you wanted to put as many kids
in, you wanted everybody to play, and you still wanted to win the game.
There was that balance that you always had.
It reminds me of one time it happened to be one of my own kids. Now,
that is pretty hard when you are coaching one of your own kids and you
get to the end of the game and you didn't put him in like you thought
you were going to because the time had run out on the game. And you go
to him--fortunately, he was my son. I was driving home, and I said, ``I
am sorry.'' I called his name and I said, ``I am sorry I didn't get you
into the game. The time had run out, but I had every intention of
getting you into the game.'' That is about like saying last Congress
when the Senate was Democrat but the House was Republican and we have
different ideas and different views that we
[[Page H5414]]
are bringing forward. I simply go back to the time when that did not
exist, when time was still on the clock and they chose not to do
anything.
Also, it is a good distracter from what we are talking about today:
cities enforcing laws, finding solutions, and doing so. That is simply
what this bill does, that is what this rule provides for, and those are
the things that need to be talked about. This is the discussion that
needs to be had, and this is the discussion the American people are
having all over, including, by the way, San Francisco, who is
reevaluating their policy even now.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my House colleagues to stop and
think for a moment and to oppose not only the rule, but the underlying
bill. It is extreme, it is anti-immigrant, and it is really not about
sanctuary cities.
In fact, this flawed legislation actually second-guesses the
decisions that are made by local police chiefs and sheriffs around the
country on how best to police their communities and ensure public
safety and ensure the kind of cooperation that they need in order for
law enforcement to work properly.
As the founder and former executive director of the National Network
to End Domestic Violence, representing domestic violence organizations
and coalitions around the country, I am deeply concerned that this
legislation will have a negative effect on the cooperation that is
necessary between law enforcement and isolated, very isolated victims
of domestic and sexual violence. Furthermore, it would strip the
bipartisan provisions that passed in the Violence Against Women Act
when we just reauthorized it.
Specifically, H.R. 3009 negatively amends section 241(i) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act by doing the following:
It undermines the spirit and protections of VAWA, effectively pushing
immigrant survivors and their children, many of whom are likely U.S.
citizens, deeper and deeper into the shadows of danger.
It undermines the policies that local communities have determined are
appropriate for their localities to ensure that victims of crime come
forward without fear of retribution.
It allows violent crimes to go uninvestigated, and it leaves victims
without redress because of reductions in funding.
This bill would have damaging ramifications for families across the
Nation and in my home State of Maryland.
I enter into the Record a letter from the National Task Force to End
Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, representing coalitions,
organizations, shelters, services, and programs in every single State
in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I want to just quote from this letter. It says: ``Fear
of deportation also strengthens the ability of abusers and traffickers
to silence and trap their victims. Not only are the individual victims
harmed, but their fear of law enforcement leads many to abstain from
reporting violent perpetrators or coming forward, and, as a result,
dangerous criminals are not identified and go unpunished.''
National Task Force To End Sexual and Domestic Violence
Against Women,
July 21, 2015.
Dear Representative: As the Steering Committee of the
National Taskforce to End Sexual and Domestic Violence
(``NTF''), comprising national leadership organizations
advocating on behalf of sexual and domestic violence victims
and women's rights, we represent hundreds of organizations
across the country dedicated to ensuring all survivors of
violence receive the protections they deserve. For this
reason, we write to express our deep concerns about the
impact of the ``Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act''
(H.R. 3009), which amends section 241(i) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act.
As government officials, we ask you to approach this issue
from the perspective of a leader and be sure of the
implications this bill can have on entire communities. All
parties have the common goal of making communities safer.
This bill will encourage law enforcement to enforce
immigration law, and will significantly hinder the ability of
certain communities to build trust and cooperation between
vulnerable and isolated victims of domestic and sexual
violence and law enforcement. Last year marked the twentieth
anniversary of the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act
(``VAWA''), which has, since it was first enacted, included
critical protections for immigrant victims of domestic and
sexual violence. This bill undermines the spirit and
protections of VAWA and will have the effect of pushing
immigrant survivors and their children (many of whom are
likely U.S. Citizens) deeper into the shadows and into
danger.
As recognized in VAWA, bipartisan legislation supporting
our nation's response to domestic and sexual violence and
stalking, immigrant victims of violent crimes are often
fearful of contacting law enforcement due to fear that they
will be deported. A recent and comprehensive survey shows
that 41 percent of Latinos believe that the primary reason
Latinos/as do not come forward is fear of deportation.
Policies that minimize the intertwining of local law
enforcement with ICE help bring the most vulnerable victims
out of the shadows by creating trust between law enforcement
and the immigrant community, which in turn helps protect our
entire communities. Fear of deportation also strengthens the
ability of abusers and traffickers to silence and trap their
victims. Not only are the individual victims harmed, but
their fear of law enforcement leads many to abstain from
reporting violent perpetrators or coming forward, and, as a
result, dangerous criminals are not identified and go
unpunished. These criminals remain on the streets and
continue to be a danger to their communities.
This bill undermines policies that local communities have
determined are appropriate for their localities, and decrease
the ability of law enforcement agencies to respond to violent
crimes and assist all (immigrant, citizens, etc.) victims of
crime. As recognized in VAWA, law enforcement plays a
critical role in our coordinated community response to
domestic and sexual violence. Federal law enforcement funding
supports critical training, equipment, and agency staffing
that assists domestic and sexual violence victims. H.R. 3009
will allow violent crimes to go uninvestigated and leave
victims without redress due to reductions in funding.
For these reasons, we urge you to affirm the intent and
spirit of VAWA and oppose the provisions above. Thank you
very much for taking this important step to protect and
support immigrant survivors of domestic violence and sexual
assault.
Ms. EDWARDS. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is not what we need to do. We
need to ensure the continued protections of domestic violence victims
all across this country, no matter who they are and no matter where
they are, and to know that law enforcement will be there to protect
them and their children.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The best way to address the problems in our immigration system, the
best way to address the lack of security for American citizens, the
best way to ensure that there are not others like Kathryn Steinle and
others that have fallen victim to immigrant felons is to fix our broken
immigration system, secure our borders. Only Congress can do that.
Now, the President has taken the first steps to help keep Americans
safe by suggesting certain policies like DACA and DAPA programs. Now,
DACA is being implemented; DAPA is, unfortunately, tied up in the
courts. What these efforts allow our law enforcement agencies to do is
to focus their efforts on criminals like Mr. Lopez-Sanchez rather than
violators of our civil law. It would be better if this body could put
those concepts into statute or, better yet, make sure that we can
differentiate between noncriminals and criminals within the law.
An immigration reform bill would reduce the risk of tragedies like
this and help keep Americans safe by helping law enforcement identify
people who are here illegally, and it would bring people out of the
shadows. Identifying the portion of our people that are here illegally
that qualify for relief and for prosecutorial discretion would help our
law enforcement agencies narrow their focus and targets to individuals
like Mr. Lopez-Sanchez.
Immigration reform efforts like H.R. 15, which was the comprehensive
bill from last Congress, would modernize our immigration agencies,
increase enforcement and resources tools, technology, and border
security to prevent tragedies like this from occurring. Doing the
difficult work of having a meaningful debate around immigration reform
is the only way we can ever be able to keep Americans safer and reduce
the likelihood of this kind of incident.
[[Page H5415]]
A vote for this particular bill won't do anything to address these
systemic problems. Had this been the law, it would not have prevented
this tragedy, nor does it do anything to address the problems plaguing
our immigration system. Instead, it threatens and bullies local law
enforcement and says to them, either expose yourself to civil
liability--which is very real. My agencies in Colorado have been forced
to pay--they have been forced to pay--$30,000 or $40,000. So pay legal
fines, or we are going to cut your grants.
Look, it is a natural tendency of people to pass the buck, and
Congress is basically trying to pass the buck to local law enforcement
for our failures here in this body.
Mr. Lopez-Sanchez should not have been wandering the streets of San
Francisco or any other American city. He should not have been allowed
to illegally enter. In fact, he had been caught at the border four or
five times, and he had snuck across other times.
{time} 1100
We need real border security, and we need to finally enforce our law
and get serious about restoring the rule of law, which this bill would
only make an even bigger joke.
Rather than restoring the rule of law and encouraging cooperation
between Federal, State, and local authorities in cases that involve
immigrant felons, this bill would punish local law enforcement for
prioritizing public safety and community policing over trying to do the
job that Congress and the Federal Government are supposed to do.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 3\3/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
It is time for this body to fix our broken immigration system to keep
Americans safe. How many other victims like Kathryn Steinle need to
make the ultimate sacrifice--or the countless other Americans who are
victims of other kinds of crime--at the hands of immigrant felons? It
will be until this body chooses to fix our broken immigration system
and restore the rule of law.
This particular bill would only further dissipate the rule of law. It
tells local law enforcement you have to either pay fines that drain
your ability to enforce our laws or you lose grants that reduce your
ability to enforce our laws.
Either way, if this bill were somehow to become law--even though the
President has indicated he would veto it--it would drain away the very
local law enforcement resources, the purpose of which is to keep
Americans safe.
Let us move forward to replace our broken immigration system with one
that works, not try to pass the buck. Mr. Speaker, the buck can't be
passed. It is the Federal Government's responsibility to secure our
border and to establish immigration laws. It is the Federal
Government's responsibility to deport criminals.
No matter how this body may try to say that it should be cities and
counties and sheriffs and police chiefs--who are trying to do the dirty
work--who are the result of our failure to take action, they need to
make the decisions that are in the best interests of keeping their
communities safe.
With 10 or 12 or 14 million people in our country illegally--some of
them immigrant felons--we are passing along the buck to local law
enforcement with an impossible task.
Rather than make that task more impossible by forcing them to pay
civil fines or to lose important law enforcement resources, let's help
them have the resources and policies they need to deport felon
immigrants before they can commit crimes like the tragedy that occurred
in San Francisco.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, to oppose this bill, and to
reject this bizarre approach that we are seeking here today, which
would have done nothing to have prevented this tragedy or any other
like it, and would lead to countless more tragedies by taking resources
out of the hands of those who are on the front lines--on our streets,
in our neighborhoods--keeping Americans safe.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
This is an interesting argument, as I stated before, because it
really defies, in many ways, logic.
The best way to help prevent what has just happened is to enforce the
law. It is not to give a substantive, wishy-washy: Well, I won't
enforce this. I don't want to enforce this. I am making a political
judgment.
In fact, that is really what the law should be there for, is to say:
This is the law that has been passed through the political process, but
this is the law for everyone.
When you have the debates in Congress, that is what the political
argument is for. I don't disagree with my friend from Colorado, as this
is the part that we are supposed to debate; but once it leaves here and
it is printed and it is law and it is signed, it is to be enforced.
To really argue that, on this side, we don't want to enforce, and, on
this side, we want to enforce, where does it end--when we don't want to
enforce drug laws? trafficking laws? employment law? Where does it end?
I am sure there are political differences in many cities, possibly in
my own district of the Ninth District of Georgia, where cities say: I
am not sure I like this employment law. I am not sure I like having to
deal with compliance, with Federal law. We will just ignore it. No. It
is about enforcement.
Lopez-Sanchez was requested by ICE. Whether you are talking about
limited resources or whether you are talking about a lot of resources,
it doesn't matter. They requested him to be held.
San Francisco said no. It is San Francisco's choice--their political
choice, their life choice. It was a life choice for this young lady.
Her life is gone.
It is not an economic choice--it is a life choice--and their choice
led to a life's being taken. It is not about whether you like the law
or not, and it is not about whether you have a view on the law or not--
it is about whether you will enforce the law or not.
I struggle with this as I understand about the interest of immigrant
communities, and I understand about good policing. My father was a
State trooper.
I understand the relationship between communities and of their all
working together to provide a safe community; but sanctuary cities are
sanctuaries for those who abide by the law--those who are here legally,
those who want to live a prosperous life and just get up and go to work
and not have to worry about being shot on the street by somebody who is
being sanctuaried because he is here illegally--not once but multiple
times over.
As has already been stated, this is not a judgment call. San
Francisco could see this. They could see his record. They could see he
had been detained for illegally entering. This is not something that
was, frankly, even close. They chose.
The question remains: Do we enforce or do we not? The question
remains: Do we want to be under a rule of law or do we want to have
something else?
It has been brought up many times today of a bill in the last
Congress that was passed by the Senate that would be the panacea for
everything and probably would help this. That was the implication
given.
I have just one question to those who make that assertion: If San
Francisco and other sanctuary cities won't enforce the law now because
of their political views, what gives them any idea they would for a new
law?
We have got a fundamental problem here, Mr. Speaker. The fundamental
problem is: Is political rule of law going to happen or is the rule of
law going to happen?
Pass any bill you want, but if we allow them to ignore it without
consequence, then you have no standard, you have no basis for debate,
you have no place to move forward.
You can pass everything you want to and have the President sign it in
beautiful ceremonies; but if we allow political subdivisions in this
country to just continue to pick and choose, then we have got a
problem.
Now, if there are issues, let's solve them here. Let's have the
debates--I
[[Page H5416]]
agree--but this isn't up for debate when it leaves here.
So pass whatever you want to pass. Will San Francisco enforce it? I
don't know--maybe, maybe not--but when they released and when other
sanctuary cities release them and say: We are not going to hold. We are
not going to do these things, then they have made a choice.
Unfortunately, in this case, they made a life choice, and that
beautiful life is gone.
This rule simply says enforce the law. This rule--this bill--says we
have law. It is what we have got right now. It is not your aspirational
goal. It is the law. Simply enforce it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________