[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 116 (Thursday, July 23, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H5440-H5451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENFORCE THE LAW FOR SANCTUARY CITIES ACT
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 370, I
call up 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, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). Pursuant to House Resolution 370,
the bill is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3009
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Enforce the Law for
Sanctuary Cities Act''.
SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (SCAAP) FUNDING.
Section 241(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1231(i)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(7) A State (or a political subdivision of a State) shall
not be eligible to enter into a contractual arrangement under
paragraph (1) if the State (or political subdivision)--
``(A) has in effect any law, policy, or procedure in
contravention of subsection (a) or (b) of section 642 of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373); or
``(B) prohibits State or local law enforcement officials
from gathering information regarding the citizenship or
immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.''.
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON DOJ GRANT PROGRAMS.
(a) COPS.--In the case of a State or unit of local
government that received a grant award under part Q of title
I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 3796dd et seq.), if, during a fiscal year, that
State or local government is a State or local government
described in subsection (c), the Attorney General shall
withhold all of the amount that would otherwise be awarded to
that State or unit of local government for the following
fiscal year.
(b) Byrne-JAG.--In the case of a State or unit of local
government that received a grant award under subpart 1 of
part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.), if, during a
fiscal year, that State or unit of local government is
described in subsection (c), the Attorney General shall
withhold all of the amount that would otherwise be awarded to
that State or unit of local government for the following
fiscal year.
(c) States and Local Governments Described.--A State or
unit of local government described in this subsection is any
State or local government that--
(1) has in effect any law, policy, or procedure in
contravention of subsection (a) or (b) of section 642 of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373); or
(2) prohibits State or local law enforcement officials from
gathering information regarding the citizenship or
immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte)
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
General Leave
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam 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 materials on H.R. 3009, currently
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I support H.R. 3009, the Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act,
and commend Representative Hunter for introducing this legislation. It
helps to address one of the main factors contributing to the collapse
of immigration enforcement in the United States, ``sanctuary cities''
that prohibit their law enforcement officers from sharing information
with Federal immigration authorities to enable the removal of unlawful
and criminal aliens.
Nearly 20 years ago, Congress realized that sanctuary cities were
impeding the Federal Government from enforcing our immigration laws and
jeopardizing the safety of our residents, immigrant and native-born
alike.
Legislation cowritten by former chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
Lamar Smith, prohibited States and localities from becoming sanctuaries
for unlawful aliens.
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996 ensures that jurisdictions cannot prohibit or restrict government
officials from sending to or receiving from Federal immigration
authorities information regarding the immigration status of any person.
Unfortunately, despite the proliferation of sanctuary jurisdictions,
the Justice Department has never initiated a prosecution for violation
of the 1996 act. If the administration won't act, Congress must, and
that is what Mr. Hunter's bill does.
It withholds key Federal law enforcement grants from sanctuary
jurisdictions that violate the 1996 act. Enactment of Representative
Hunter's legislation will help persuade sanctuary jurisdictions to
simply abide by current Federal law and, in doing so, advance public
safety.
Representative Hunter's bill is an important first step, but there is
much more we will need to do to rebuild immigration enforcement in the
United States. Once jurisdictions notify DHS of arrested unlawful and
criminal aliens, it is crucial that they hold these aliens for transfer
so that DHS can launch removal proceedings.
The Center for Immigration Studies has revealed that, in the first 8
months of 2014, sanctuary cities refused to comply with DHS detainers
for 8,145 aliens. After releasing these aliens, in only an 8-month
period, 1,867 were arrested again for a criminal offense. Most
recently, San Francisco's refusal to honor a DHS detainer resulted in
the tragic death of Kathryn Steinle.
This is why it is so important that jurisdictions honor DHS
detainers. In fact, just this morning, we held a hearing in the
Judiciary Committee where a representative from the Steinle family
testified.
The conclusion of the witnesses was that we need to make crystal
clear that compliance with ICE detainers is mandatory; yet this
administration openly proclaims that detainers can be ignored and has
chosen to dramatically scale back their issuance.
This administration has chosen to create enforcement-free zones for
millions of unlawful and criminal aliens. It has turned the U.S. into a
sanctuary Nation. That is the current reality.
Despite DHS' pledge to prioritize the removal of serious criminal
aliens, in the last year, the number of administrative arrests by
criminal aliens has fallen by a third. U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement continues to release thousands of criminal aliens onto our
streets, 30,558 in 2014, of which another 1,423 have already been
convicted of new crimes.
There are almost 180,000 convicted criminal aliens currently in
removal proceedings living in our neighborhoods and almost 170,000
convicted aliens who have been ordered removed from the country also
still living free and causing crimes on our streets.
Under the Obama administration, the total number of convicted
criminal aliens who are not being detained has jumped 28 percent since
2012 to a total of nearly 350,000.
[[Page H5441]]
We must prevent this or any other administration from being able to
turn off the switch on immigration enforcement. Representative Gowdy,
chairman of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, has
offered us a way forward to ensure enforcement of our immigration laws,
despite the purposeful inaction of any administration.
His legislation, the Michael Davis, Jr. and Danny Oliver in Honor of
State and Local Law Enforcement Act, allows States and localities to
enact and enforce immigration laws of their own, as long as they are
consistent with Federal law. Jurisdictions could proactively take
responsibility for protecting their communities and ensuring the
integrity of our immigration system.
Today, we are making an important down payment on protecting our
constituents, and I appreciate the majority leader's commitment to me
that we will take additional action to ensure compliance with our
immigration laws in the future.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3009, the Enforce the Law for
Sanctuary Cities Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3009, the Enforce the Law for
Sanctuary Cities Act.
This thoroughly flawed measure is a blatant attempt by most of the
majority to insert its anti-immigrant status agenda into local policing
initiatives. It does this by prohibiting State and local governments
from receiving critical criminal justice funds if they have policies
that prioritize public safety and community policing over Federal
immigration enforcement.
The bill absolutely makes no sense because, rather than improving
public safety, it will achieve the complete opposite; and that is not
just my conclusion. Law enforcement agencies from across the United
States and numerous organizations--such as the Major County Sheriffs
Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Law Enforcement
Immigration Task Force, the United States Conference of Mayors, and the
National League of Cities--all oppose this bill.
In effect, this bill would punish law enforcement officers by
withholding the funds they need to do their jobs, and it would require
States and localities to prioritize Federal immigration enforcement
ahead of enhancing public safety.
Reactionary proposals such as this legislation will only make our
communities less safe because immigrants will not report crimes or
otherwise cooperate with the police if they fear they or their family
members may be asked for their immigration status. As a result, crimes
will go unsolved and unpunished while criminals are free to victimize
more people.
In addition, withholding crucial United States Department of Justice
funds from local communities will not lower crime. Studies have
demonstrated that these programs, particularly the COPS and Byrne JAG
funds, provide crucial support services to fight criminal activity, but
a vote for H.R. 3009 is a vote to take these funds away and to risk
making communities less safe.
All of us, on both sides of the aisle, are opposed to violent crime.
There is simply no debate about that. Not one of us would condone what
happened to Kate Steinle in San Francisco, but H.R. 3009 is simply the
wrong approach.
I agree with the Major Cities Chiefs Association that the best way to
reduce crime in their cities is to gain the community's trust and
cooperation. I also believe that the majority of immigrants in this
country are hard-working, law-abiding residents; and comprehensive
immigration reform would allow these law-abiding individuals to come
out of the shadows and get right with the law.
Such legislative reform would enable Immigration and Customs
Enforcement to focus its limited resources on deporting the worst
elements, while ensuring that our entire community, citizens and
immigrants alike, are protected from harm.
Instead of considering this commonsense solution, the majority--most
of them--have repeatedly voted to deport DREAMers; to deport the
parents of United States citizens; and to deport vulnerable children
from fleeing persecution, violence, and trafficking.
Now, the majority, in the form of H.R. 3009, asks us to override the
public safety mission of State and local enforcement agencies to
increase deportations.
I strenuously urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous
legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1430
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter), the chief sponsor of this legislation.
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, let me say to Chairman Goodlatte, thank
you very much for your leadership on this and thanks for moving this so
quickly. This is a timely bill, and I just want to thank you and your
committee for moving it so quick.
This legislation is about one thing. That is accountability. The
American people have the right to not give their Federal tax dollars to
municipalities and States that do not follow Federal law.
There are lots of changes to enforcement that must be imposed on
sanctuary cities, and we are going to work toward those things. This
Republican Congress is going to work toward those things, just as we
are putting in motion a mechanism today that holds sanctuary cities
accountable.
I think we can all agree that any locality must comply with the law,
and they are required to coordinate and cooperate with the Federal
Government. If an arrest is made, the Federal Government should be
notified.
The fact that San Francisco and L.A. and other cities disagree with
the politics of Federal enforcement does not give them a free pass to
subvert the law. If they do, there has to be consequences.
The way that we impose consequences on these sanctuary cities is by
hitting them where it hurts, and that is in their pocketbook. It is
simple.
If you don't comply with the law as it stands now, then you don't
receive coveted Federal money intended for law enforcement. And that
money allocated for fiscal year 2015 alone almost adds up to a billion
dollars.
$800 million are going to municipalities, cities, counties, and
States that care more about illegal alien criminals, felons, than they
do their own citizens. It is time we stand up to sanctuary cities and
begin holding them accountable for their failure to uphold the law.
I come as a representative that has sanctuary cities in my district.
They are going to lose money for this. They are going to lose money
because they are not complying with Federal law.
This Federal money that they get is taxpayer money from States like
Wisconsin, from New York, from South Carolina, from Florida, and
throughout the entire country. People around this country don't want
their money going to States and cities that don't care to follow the
Federal law.
Again, if you are a State, city, or locality and you choose to defy
Federal immigration law, you will be cut off from three Federal
programs: the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, the Community-
Oriented Policing Services program, and the Byrne JAG program.
These are the three funds that will get cut if you are a sanctuary
city. All you have to do to receive these funds is comply with the
Federal law.
This bill is just the first step in restoring accountability in our
immigration system. Our border infrastructure continues to fall short
in too many places, and I am as frustrated as anyone in this Congress
that the administration refuses to enforce Federal immigration law.
These are all serious issues that need to be addressed, and I look
forward to working with this Congress and Chairman Goodlatte in the
future to advance these goals.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3009.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, we have an immigration system that is
badly broken. There are 11 million undocumented people in this country.
Contrary to what Donald Trump may think, the majority of these people
are not rapists.
[[Page H5442]]
They are hard-working people, spouses and parents of U.S. citizens,
DREAMers, entrepreneurs who want an opportunity to come forward, submit
to background checks, and become fully American.
Faced with a broken system, State and local law enforcement have
adopted policies to enhance public safety and maintain community trust.
Because when people are afraid of the police, when they are afraid
that the police might ask them or their family about their immigration
status, they are afraid to report crimes, unlikely to cooperate with
investigations, and then criminals thrive and the general public
suffers.
This bill puts an impossible choice between State and local law
enforcement agencies. They can either abandon policies that work or
they can lose the Federal funds they rely on to police their
communities and protect them.
The dangers posed by this bill are real. 144 national, State, and
local advocacy organizations have written opposing this bill because of
the detrimental impact it would have on public safety, big cities, but
also little ones like Dayton, Ohio, a place that most people don't
think of as a sanctuary city.
In Dayton, police officers are told not to check immigration status
of witnesses and victims, nor to ask about immigration during minor
traffic stops.
The police chief there has explained that this policy has helped them
have a safer community. According to the chief, after the policy was
adopted, serious violent crime dropped nearly 22 percent and serious
property crime decreased almost 15 percent.
Madam Speaker, why should Dayton, Ohio, be barred from receiving
funds for policing when their policies work?
Now, punishing the law enforcement officers by withholding the funds
they need is not only incorrect, it is why the bill is opposed to by
the Major County Sheriffs' Associations, the Fraternal Order of Police,
dozens of sheriffs and police chiefs.
The President has said we should deport felons, not families, and
that is what his priority enforcement program does.
The Secretary of Homeland Security told the Judiciary Committee just
last week that withholding funds from communities would be a huge
setback in efforts to improve the relationship between DHS, State, and
local law enforcement in communities across the country.
It has been said that this bill is a response to the tragic murder of
Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco, just up the road from my district.
However, nothing in this bill would have prevented that outrageous
murder of Ms. Steinle. Nothing in the bill would have required the
Bureau of Prisons and ICE to consult with San Francisco, to ascertain
whether or not the 20-year-old warrant would lead to a prosecution.
Nothing in this bill would have required ICE to obtain a warrant, as
is necessary to hold people beyond the term of their criminal sentence.
Nothing in the bill would even have affected the sheriff of San
Francisco's decision to release the individual charged with murdering
Ms. Steinle.
So that tragedy should not be used to advance a different agenda,
this bill.
Over the last year we have come to the floor to vote on bills to
deport the DREAM Act kids, to deport the parents of U.S. citizens, to
deport vulnerable children fleeing persecution and sex trafficking.
Today we are asked to vote on a bill that overrides the public safety
mission of State and local law enforcement agencies and to increase
deportations all around.
We had the votes to pass comprehensive immigration reform in the last
Congress, and I hope we can get back to that point.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I would note that we have an opportunity
here to learn from the tragedy in San Francisco to come up with real
solutions that would make our community safer instead of using that
tragedy as an excuse to promote a different agenda.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to make very
clear nothing in this bill requires any officer of the law to ask any
question of any victims of crime about their immigration status.
All it does is prohibit cities and counties from ordering their
officers to not communicate with ICE or gather information from ICE
about the status of individuals. This is a good bill.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the former
chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the current chairman of the
Science Committee.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, first of all, let me thank the
gentleman from Virginia and a good friend and the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee for yielding me time.
Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 3009, the Enforce the Law for Sanctuary
City Act. The bill is appropriately named, since sanctuary cities
violate current laws that require these jurisdictions to share
information with Federal authorities about illegal immigrants who have
been arrested.
H.R. 3009 helps enforce an immigration bill I introduced several
years ago that became law. This legislation withholds certain Federal
funds from sanctuary jurisdictions that hide the immigration status of
illegal immigrants charged with crimes. These reforms serve as a first
step in keeping dangerous criminals off our streets and out of our
neighborhoods.
Sanctuary cities have increased under this administration, which has
done nothing to discourage them.
During only an 8-month period last year, sanctuary cities released
almost 9,000 illegal immigrants charged with or convicted of serious
crimes. One-quarter have already been arrested again for committing
more crimes, like murder and sexual assault. When does it end?
I don't understand how anyone could oppose enforcing immigration
laws. The victims are not Democrats or Republicans. The victims are
innocent Americans.
Many of the crimes committed by illegal immigrants could have been
prevented if the Obama administration had enforced immigration laws.
Instead, it has chosen to ignore them and innocent Americans continue
to pay a steep price.
I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for authorizing
this legislation, and I urge its approval.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3009,
which would make communities across the country less safe from crime.
This legislation would withhold needed Federal funding from cities
that prohibit their law enforcement authorities from collecting
information on a person's immigration status or that have policies
restricting the disclosure of this information to other governmental
entities.
Many cities, including New York, have made the reasonable
determination that they will not question victims of crime or witnesses
to a crime about their immigration status. They believe it is
counterproductive to make them afraid to cooperate with law
enforcement.
But this bill says that we in Congress know better, and, in the name
of protecting public safety, we will deny such cities the funds that
they need to protect the public safety.
Many cities think that their communities are safer when a victim of
domestic violence feels comfortable asking the police for protection
from their abuser without fear of deportation.
They believe that witnesses to a murder ought to step forward and
assist law enforcement in tracking down the perpetrator without fear
that they will face consequences of their own if they step forward.
They think that good policing depends on building trust with their
residents and that striking fear among immigrants that they may be
deported if they report a crime makes everyone less safe.
Punishing residents of cities whose officials have made such
decisions is both unfair and unwise. New York City alone could lose $57
million under this legislation.
This would not only punish the public officials who set these
policies and the undocumented residents in their
[[Page H5443]]
communities, but it would punish all innocent people who depend on
these Federal resources to protect public safety.
My heart is with the Steinle family, and we all share their outrage
at Kate's senseless murder. But this bill and other attempts to punish
so-called sanctuary cities would do nothing to address the issues that
might have prevented her death.
Instead of taking positive steps to improve communication between
Federal, State, and local authorities, this bill simply demonizes
immigrants and perpetuates the myth that they are more prone to commit
a crime than is the native-born population.
This legislation might fit comfortably in Donald Trump's campaign
platform, but it has no business on the House floor.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I just want to make clear that the
gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the committee, is wrong about
this bill. He says it only prohibits States and localities from
adopting policies about not communicating with ICE. This is not true.
The bill also prohibits State and local law enforcement agencies from
adopting policies directing their officers not to collect information
about immigration status for the general public.
Any individual, the bill says. So it doesn't state that State and
local police must gather immigration status information for the Federal
Government.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
{time} 1445
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say again,
nothing in the bill requires any officer to ask any question of any
victim of crimes about their immigration status. All it does is
prohibit cities and counties from ordering their officers to not
communicate with ICE or to gather the information status of
individuals.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I appreciate this bill coming to the
floor.
I hear this discussion, and it seems to me there is a consistent
theme that the people on the other side of the aisle are opposed to
bringing leverage to political subdivisions to bring about law
enforcement. They assert that nothing in this bill could have prevented
the tragic murder of Kate Steinle.
I would suggest that if we had no sanctuary jurisdictions in America,
there is a lot greater chance that his deportation would have stuck;
and if we had a President of the United States who worked to get our
law enforcement officers to coordinate at each level of our political
subdivisions rather than litigate when they do mirror Federal law,
likely we would have had a chance to prevent not only her tragic death
but that of thousands and thousands of others.
I support this bill. It is encompassed within an amendment that I
brought to the floor here on June 3 that passed with 227 votes. I
congratulate Duncan Hunter for his persistence on this legislation that
is 6 years long. I am grateful to be working on an immigration issue
with the second generation of Hunters.
I see there is much more enforcement that is ahead of us, but this is
a step, and it is a step that helps us find out are people for a thread
of enforcement and bringing some leverage to try to bring the political
subdivisions in line rather than having them flout the law, which they
have consistently done, and it has grown dramatically under the Obama
administration.
I would add that there is much more that I would like to do, much
more to do. I would like to move Kate's Law. Matt Salmon has brought
some of that. I would like to make it incremental so it goes from a 5-
year mandatory to a 10-year mandatory on second offense and move it up
the line. I would like to make E-Verify mandatory. I would like to pass
the New IDEA Act so the IRS can help enforce this. I would like to
build a fence, a wall, and a fence, Madam Speaker, and I would like to
repass the border bill that we did last summer. There are a number of
good things.
By the way, we need to make detainers mandatory, and we need to
tighten up the loophole language. All of that we have a chance to do
after Labor Day. Today we need to do what we can do, and that is pass
this bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to
this misguided legislation offered under the false pretense that it has
something to do with the tragic murder of Kathryn Steinle in San
Francisco. Make no mistake, Miss Steinle's killer should not have been
on the streets. We must get to the bottom of the official misjudgment
and negligence and the bureaucratic breakdown that led to this tragedy.
As the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of
the Committee on Appropriations, I take a backseat to no one when it
comes to deporting dangerous criminal aliens who pose a threat to
public safety. But we also need to be very clear about this: this
tragedy has nothing to do with so-called sanctuary cities.
The bill before us would punish some of the most vulnerable cities
high on the UASI list--places like San Francisco, New York, Miami,
Chicago--punish them for exercising their lawful discretion in dealing
with noncriminals or those with minor violations. They do this in order
to protect the public and enforce the law, which requires trust and
cooperation with immigrant communities. To scapegoat entire cities and
make law enforcement less effective through this bill is simply
inexcusable.
I urge its defeat.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to the
gentleman from North Carolina, this bill has everything to do with what
happened in San Francisco. The tragic murder of Kate Steinle was
because the city of San Francisco was not following the law and
contacting the immigration service and doing things to make sure that
he was deported. Instead, they released him back onto their streets.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill, in
support of American families.
This week, we have heard powerful and heartbreaking stories from
families who have lost a loved one at the hands of an illegal
immigrant. Oftentimes, these individuals were able to operate freely
because of the sanctuary policies of certain U.S. cities, policies that
ignore Federal immigration law.
It is time this Congress put the lives and welfare of American
citizens and legal residents first. It is time to protect the innocent.
This means not another Kate, Josh, Dennis, Danny, Grant, and countless
others. It is time to penalize cities that willfully ignore Federal law
to the detriment of citizens and legal residents.
I encourage my fellow Members to read the testimony from this week's
Senate hearing. Read about the lives lost, the brutality of the crimes,
the lack of remorse by the perpetrators, and the heartbreak of the
families. Today we have a choice: protect fellow Americans or give
sanctuary to criminal aliens.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), an excellent member of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, just a few weeks into his campaign and
Donald Trump has a bill on the floor of the House. That is better than
some of the Senators he is running against. Donald Trump announces his
campaign, saying Mexican immigrants are mostly murderers, drug dealers,
and rapists. What is the response from the Republican Party? Do they
denounce him? No, they only denounce people when they go after war
heroes who ran for President. I denounce him for that, too.
Some tried to distance themselves from his comments. Okay. But here
we are on the floor of the House passing a bill to jump on the Trump
bandwagon, cynically exploiting a family's tragedy in San Francisco to
score political points.
[[Page H5444]]
I have been very clear from day one, despite efforts to spear me by
hard-line advocates, that the person, this Lopez-Sanchez, who pulled
the trigger in San Francisco should have been deported and never turned
over. I have no sympathy for him. I have said it on this floor, and I
will say it again today: murderers should rot in hell.
The breakdown by the Federal Government--the Federal Government--to
deport a known criminal, as they have done before, to keep them in
jail, is what led to an American woman losing her life. She was just
about the age of my daughters when she was killed. A tragedy, and a
preventable tragedy, if the Federal Government had done what it is
supposed to do, and preventable if this Congress had done what it was
supposed to do and address immigration years ago, as my side of the
aisle has been pleading for you to do.
But this Republican proposal is not a serious attempt at fixing the
problem. Instead of piecemeal measures aimed at maximizing deportation,
the long overdue solution is for Congress to enact comprehensive
immigration reform that combines smart enforcement at the border and in
the interior with a clear plan for reducing the size of the
undocumented population in America.
We do this by having a modern visa system so people can come with
visas and background checks, not with smugglers or overstaying visas
and just blending in. We do this by telling millions of people who have
never committed crimes: Come forward; admit you are here illegally; go
through a background check; and work your way to the right side of the
law. Get the millions of immigrants inside the system and on the books
so they no longer need to worry about their local police working with
or without the deportation system.
If you get millions and millions of immigrants inside the law, then
the ones who are criminals can't qualify to get inside the law. They
will stick out like sore thumbs, not blend in to our communities across
America and cause havoc, as they did in San Francisco.
But this is very specifically the approach the Republican majority
refused to touch with a 10-foot pole because they see demagogues like
Donald Trump.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. But this approach of bringing millions and millions of
immigrants inside the law so that we can get after the criminals that
stick out like sore thumbs outside of the law, this approach is what
has been the approach that the Republican majority refuses to touch
with a 10-foot pole because they see demagogues like Donald Trump
firing up frustrated voters and want to take the easy way out.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Salmon).
Mr. SALMON. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague Duncan
Hunter for working with me in crafting this important piece of
legislation. As the coauthor of this bill, I am very proud to see the
House taking action on this front. I also want to thank leadership for
bringing this bill to the floor.
We are hearing some strange rhetoric here today, especially from the
other side of the aisle. I hear about vulnerable cities. How about
vulnerable taxpaying Americans? I hear about sanctuary for thugs like
the one that killed Kate Steinle. Shouldn't our cities be a sanctuary
for law-abiding American citizens who have a right to walk on safe
streets?
Make no mistake, this is a very, very important bill. From 2010 to
2014, the number 121 should stick in everybody's minds; 121 illegal
immigrants with lengthy criminal records went on to commit murder after
they were let out to do their heinous crimes.
That is why I was so appalled to hear one of my colleagues from
across the aisle call the murder of American citizens like Kate Steinle
and my constituent, Grant Ronnebeck, a little thing. Such disgusting
remarks and flagrant disregard for life, especially the lives of those
that we claim to represent, I find repulsive. In fact, such callous
remarks only serve to highlight the fact that it is time for the
majority of Americans who want to see government fulfill its most basic
constitutional duties, protecting its borders and its citizens, stand
up and take America back. It is time to stand up and be heard and
demand that our government fulfill these most basic duties.
These sanctuary cities that refuse to uphold the law and openly
broadcast the fact that they are flouting the law make our country less
safe and only serve to perpetuate tragedies like the one that we saw in
San Francisco. Not only are these supposed sanctuary cities ignoring
the law, but they are broadcasting the fact to illegal immigrant felons
like Kate Steinle's murderer, a seven-time felon who flat out admitted
one of the reasons that he chose to stay in San Francisco--in fact, the
predominant reason he chose to stay--was because he knew that they
would protect him.
Well, who is going to protect law-abiding Americans? When will
American cities be sanctuaries for Americans and not for illegal
felons?
Unfortunately, these sanctuary cities are not being held accountable
by this administration, which has demonstrated time and time again it
has no interest in securing the border or upholding existing
immigration law. With this in mind, I think that we have a
responsibility to stand up and do what is right. This sanctuary cities
policy and fixing it so that they have to abide by the laws that we
pass here in Congress to protect our borders and protect our citizens
has to be adhered to. It is just common sense.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to
Representative Lofgren and ask unanimous consent that she be permitted
to control the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. O'Rourke).
Mr. O'ROURKE. Madam Speaker, I would like to bring the perspective of
my community, the community I have the honor of representing in
Congress, El Paso, Texas, to bear in this discussion.
El Paso is the safest community with an over 500,000 population in
the United States today, and it has been for the last 4 years in a row.
That is, some people think, despite the fact that it is connected to
Ciudad Juarez at the U.S.-Mexico border and despite the fact that it
has a large number of immigrants in the community. I say, and the
people who live in that community agree with me, that it is, in large
part, because of immigrants who come to participate and contribute to
the American Dream.
{time} 1500
On issues and matters of law enforcement, I tend to defer to the
experts. Big city police chiefs and county sheriffs, like the sheriff
in El Paso, Texas, say for them to prevent crime and solve crimes, it
is necessary to be able to work with everyone in the community without
fear that they are going to be enforcing Federal law enforcement
mandates to the exclusion of the public safety of the people that I
have the honor of representing.
For that reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against
this proposal, a solution in search of a problem.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say, yet
again, nothing in this bill requires any officer to ask any question of
any victims of crime about their immigration status. All it does is
prohibit cities and counties from ordering their officers not to
communicate with ICE or to gather information status about individuals.
It is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for
so consistently working on this issue of how we deal with the criminal
illegal alien population and also with the sanctuary cities.
I thank Mr. Hunter for the work that he has done on this bill. I
chuckled when Congressman King and the gentleman from Iowa mentioned
the second generation of Hunters because, yes, we do know that his
father was very involved in this issue and focusing on making certain
that we keep our cities safe.
[[Page H5445]]
As we have this debate and as we look at these sanctuary city
policies that certain counties and cities and State have exercised, we
have come to realize that through the years, every State has become a
border State and every town a border town because of the criminal
illegal alien population that will gravitate to these sanctuary cities.
Los Angeles was the first sanctuary city in 1979. We hear people say,
Oh, this is an issue that has been around for a long time. Mr. Speaker,
that does not mean you do not address the issue. It means you solve the
problem; you bring forward solutions, and that is what we are doing
here today.
The U.S. Sentencing Commission recently released some data that I
think is instructive to this debate. Illegal aliens accounted for
almost 75 percent of Federal sentencing for drug possession and made up
more than a third of all Federal sentences in 2014. That is why we are
dealing with this issue.
Our constituents are saying, You need to put this on a front burner
and deal with this issue. That is what we are doing here. Look at the
State of Texas. I just recently read the stats from them.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Byrne). The time of the gentlewoman has
expired.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. In Texas, the department of public safety released a
report that, between 2008 and 2014, foreign aliens committed over
600,000 crimes and almost 3,000 murders in the State of Texas. That is
the reason that we come here to address this issue.
Mr. Speaker, the crime rate for illegal aliens in this country should
be zero. It should be zero because it should not be tolerated.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Becerra).
Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
The man who killed Kathryn Steinle should be punished to the fullest
extent of the law. Perhaps more importantly, the officials who released
the person who killed her--released this man from custody--dropped the
ball, they should be held accountable.
This bill punishes the police in my city of Los Angeles, the police
in the city of Knoxville, and the police in Manchester, New Hampshire.
It punishes police that had nothing to do with the crime that occurred
in San Francisco. It takes away money from the police departments in
Los Angeles, in Knoxville, and Manchester, when we need to put people
and police on the street to protect all of us.
This would deprive our cities of monies we have earned because we
paid our taxes. Why? It is because the proponents of this bill say that
our cities are violating the law. If we are violating the law, name the
law we are violating. We are not violating any law. You just don't like
the policy.
Don't take the Donald Trump bait. Don't punish others for the crimes
of someone else. In our country, you go after the person who is
criminally liable; you go after that individual and lock them up
forever, but don't tell the police in Los Angeles, Manchester, or in
Knoxville, Tennessee, or other cities that are trying to have a working
relationship between their police and growing immigrant communities
that they won't be able to collaborate so we can go after the
criminals--because that is what you are doing.
You are taking money away from L.A., even though this crime did not
happen in my city, and you are telling my police department and the men
and women in uniform in L.A. that they will have fewer officers by
their side because you are going to take money away because you don't
like that some guy committed a criminal act. He killed someone; he
should be punished for it, but we had nothing to do with it. Go after
the folks that are accountable.
This is not the way we do justice in America, and it is wrong. It is
wrong for you to tell all these communities who have a working
relationship between their police officers and their growing immigrant
communities that they are now going to lose funds to hire more police
officers. That is the wrong way to do it.
That is the Donald Trump bait. Don't take it. Let's vote this down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded that their remarks must
be directed to the Chair.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to
the gentleman from California to tell him that the law that sanctuary
cities are violating is title 8, section 1373 of the United States
Code, communication between government agencies and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
The failure to do that has resulted in 8,000 criminal aliens being
released onto our streets just last year by sanctuary cities. Those
8,000 criminal aliens have since then already committed nearly 1,900
additional crimes. This is about not just San Francisco, but other
States as well.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Enforce
the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act because we have got to stop the
madness of not enforcing our laws.
In the last weeks, we have seen coverage of two terrible murders that
occurred because our laws went unenforced. My thoughts, prayers, and
condolences go out to the families of the victims. Sadly, these
tragedies are but a representation of a larger, deeper, and more
troubling problem.
While I wish today we were also considering legislation by Mr. Gowdy
to address the administration's abysmal lack of respect for our
immigration laws, Chairman McCaul's bill to secure the borders, or
Chairman Lamar Smith's bill to implement E-Verify to stop businesses
from exploiting undocumented workers, this bill is a step in the right
direction. It will stop the American people from subsidizing local law
enforcement departments that refuse to do their jobs and enforce the
law.
Let's take the emotion out of this. Let's take it out of the
immigration and border security issue, which are emotionally charged.
This is a fiscally responsible bill. If we were spending money for a
defense contractor to develop a new weapons system and they weren't
developing that weapons system, we would take the money back.
Well, here we are, giving money to law enforcement to work with ICE
to deal with criminal aliens, and they are not doing it. Of course, we
have got to take the money back. It would be foolish to do anything
else.
Mr. Speaker, this horrible loss of life that we have seen is a result
of the negligence and complete lack of respect for the rule of law that
this administration and the mayors of sanctuary cities took an oath to
uphold. It is appalling. Today, we are going to be able to deal with
one part of that problem, and I am going to encourage all of my
colleagues to vote with me to support H.R. 3009 and put our Nation back
on the path to sanity.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 9\3/4\
remaining. The gentleman from Virginia has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, we have only one additional speaker, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Community trust policies result in more efficient policing. When
State and local law enforcement agencies promote community trust
policies, public safety is increased.
The current New York police commissioner and former chief of police
in Los Angeles, William Bratton, said: ``When officers can speak freely
with victims and witnesses, it goes a long way towards making every
American neighborhood much safer.''
Here is a case study in New Haven, Connecticut. According to a 2010
report by the Police Executive Research Forum, New Haven, Connecticut,
developed a community trust policy in which New Haven police assured
immigrant communities that the police department's goals were to
address crime and to make the streets safer.
They encouraged people to report crime and to cooperate, regardless
of their immigration status. The city law prohibited immigration status
inquiries of crime victims, witnesses, or others who approached police
for assistance.
[[Page H5446]]
I would note that the bill before us would prohibit this policy, this
law that New Haven adopted. The result of New Haven's policy and their
other community trust policies were stronger ties between law
enforcement and the immigrant community. Over the next several years,
New Haven experienced a 46 percent decrease in murders and a 13 percent
decrease in rape incidences. This policy, which this bill would
prohibit, worked.
This was a very important result. After learning of it, the United
States Conference of Mayors, a group that most of us trust pretty much,
did a survey of cities around the United States who adopted the same
trust policies.
They include Alameda, California; Augusta, Georgia; New Brunswick,
New Jersey; and a whole host of others. They found that all of these
cities also reported the same kind of reduction in crime after they
adopted these policies. Adopting these policies is an important
component of keeping communities safe, and this bill would prohibit
that. It would prohibit it.
Now, I understand the outrage over Mr. Lopez-Sanchez. In fact, I
share it. Obviously, he has been accused of murder. Even when we have a
situation like this, we have to have a trial, but I believe personally
that he is guilty, based on all the evidence.
I believe he should not have been out on that street in San
Francisco. If you look at his record--and I will go through it a little
bit--it actually makes certain points. I have heard people say, Well,
we have got open borders, and that is why he was here.
In fact, that is not the case. This individual attempted to enter the
United States repeatedly, and he was caught by the Border Patrol, just
as they are supposed to do their job.
What happened then is he was deported repeatedly in the nineties, and
then they started prosecuting him for felony reentry after removal. He
served 16 years in Federal prison for the felony of reentering after
removal.
Our laws went after him. He should not have been released in San
Francisco, but I think some of what we need to do is see what policies
would have kept him off that street, and I will deal with those later.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I took a look at the statute, the code section that the chairman
cited as the authority that a law has been violated by San Francisco.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
The gentleman will direct his remarks to the Chair.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I will direct my remarks to the Chair.
May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if any of my time has been consumed as a
result of the Chair's interruptions of my remarks?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It has not.
Mr. BECERRA. I thank the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee made a statement that the
law that had been violated by San Francisco, and the law that would be
violated by places like Los Angeles that would cause this legislation
to have my community of Los Angeles lose money for its police officers
was a particular section in the code.
{time} 1515
I have read the code. I am looking it up right now. That section
relates to information being provided about the immigration status of
an individual. We are not talking about the immigration status of an
individual. We all knew that this individual was not documented. We
knew his status. The information that was not conveyed in this
particular case is that the individual is going to be released from
custody. This bill doesn't change that.
There was no law violated by the city of San Francisco. Certainly, my
city of Los Angeles didn't violate any law. The city of Knoxville,
Tennessee, didn't violate any law. The city of Manchester, New
Hampshire didn't violate any law. And I could name to you any number of
other cities and towns in America who are trying to establish working
relationships with their immigrant community who did not violate any
law. But this bill would punish all those cities and towns simply
because this legislation wishes to extract punishment for any city that
has established a policy working with its immigrant community.
There is no State or city law in America that supersedes Federal law.
Federal law is the law of the land. The chairman knows that. We all
know that. And so, to pretend that somehow cities are violating Federal
law is a farce. It is the sort of attack that Donald Trump is using
right now as he goes out and campaigns for President.
We should not fall for that, and we should not deny our police
departments funding because of a policy that some people don't like.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to close by posing some of the questions that this bill
does not deal with and that I think should command our attention.
In this case, we had an individual who had a criminal record. He had
attempted to enter the United States, was apprehended, deported, was
prosecuted and convicted for illegal entry after removal. After serving
over 4 years for the last felony prosecution, he was ready to be
deported, but they found, even though he had been deported many times
before with an outstanding bench warrant from 1995 where the underlying
offense was marijuana possession, all of a sudden, this year, he was
sent to San Francisco.
I think one of the questions we need to ask is: What is the process
of outstanding warrants and its interface with the Bureau of Prisons
when someone really should be deported?
Apparently, there was no communication between the Federal Government
and the prosecuting attorney in San Francisco. He was sent to,
apparently, San Francisco, but the district attorney did not see this
matter until he was already in custody.
Now, I don't fault the district attorney for not prosecuting on a 20-
year-old marijuana possession case. Where would you find the witnesses?
And, in fact, in California today, marijuana possession is an
infraction, not a misdemeanor. But the point is he should never have
been in San Francisco to begin with.
So I think we need to take a look at the processes that we have to
make sure that we don't have this kind of situation again. Clearly, he
should not have been released when the district attorney declined to
prosecute.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from California (Mr.
Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I represent many small communities in
California that have a lot of gang violence. It is mostly Hispanic
young men against Hispanic young men. They are not undocumented. They
are actually second-generation gangs, a lot of killings. In fact, it is
labeled the murder capital of the world, or in the United States.
What the community has been trying to do is work out what we call
community policing, where you really trust the cops. What happens is
they asked them to be a sanctuary city, because what the local cops
didn't like about the INS and la migra coming in is that they would
just come in and do raids and they would round up innocent people, and
there was just lots of confusion. Our office would get involved trying
to trace people down, where are they, and all these things.
What the sanctuary city says is, look, let's not just turn over the
name to everybody we stop on an infraction to the Federal cop. Let them
come down and do what they call jail checks. Well, they don't want to
do jail checks. That is not fun and fancy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. LOFGREN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. FARR. The problem is that this community policing, the problem is
this bill just busts all that, all the trust that has been built.
As Congresswoman Lofgren said, the San Francisco deal was a big
screwup between law enforcement. But don't penalize all these other
cities that are doing a lot of wonderful things to do community
policing and lead to confidence in law enforcement, not disconfidence.
You are going to create more problems than you ever imagined, like
people not wanting to report crimes, not wanting to talk to cops, and
you are just using the heavy hand of government to bust good community
relations.
[[Page H5447]]
I just think this is the wrong way to do it. Let's let this thing air
out and address the problems that Congresswoman Lofgren talked about
and not adopt this bill.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to
both gentlemen from California.
First, with regard to Mr. Becerra, the fact of the matter is that
title 8 of the United States Code, section 1373, related to
communication between government agencies and Immigration and
Naturalization Service, is an important statute, and sanctuary cities
violate that statute when they pass ordinances that prohibit--
prohibit--their law enforcement officers from communicating with the
Immigration and Naturalization Service.
This yields situations like what occurred in San Francisco, because
the sheriff there has a policy saying they could not communicate with
the INS. Already, one San Francisco supervisor has called upon the city
to change the policy so that they will communicate.
This bill, which cuts off funds to cities that have provisions that
contradict and violate the United States law does the same thing by a
different route, and it will save many lives in the future if local law
enforcement will communicate with the INS.
Now, to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), I just want to
repeat again what I have said several times here.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
There is nothing in this bill that requires any officer to ask any
question of any victims of crimes about their immigration status or to
reveal that information to the INS.
So I would urge folks to look at what this bill, very
straightforward, simple bill says. Federal law governs immigration
policy, and local governments shouldn't have hundreds of different
immigration policies of their own.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I
would just close by saying that we have been asked by law enforcement
agencies, by domestic violence advocacy groups, by the faith community
not to adopt this bill. I know we can come together to make a safer
community. This bill is not the answer, and I urge Members to vote
``no.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 6\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), the chairman of the
Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, to close our debate.
Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte for his
leadership on this and so many other issues of significance on the
Judiciary Committee. His steady hand and brilliant legal mind are
without equal on our committee.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the family of Kate Steinle for the
grace that they have shown during this time of unspeakable grief.
Burying a child, Mr. Speaker, is what each of us who has ever been
called Mom or Dad fears the most. After Trayvon Martin was killed, the
President said, ``That could have been my son,'' Mr. Speaker.
And when I see a picture of a beautiful Kate Steinle smiling, that
could have been any of our daughters. And it still can be, because what
happened to her, Mr. Speaker, can and will happen again if we do not
get serious about enforcing the law.
Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, Mr. Speaker, had a quarter century's
worth of lawlessness. Dating back to 1991, he committed local, State,
and Federal crimes in five separate States, I hasten to add, Mr.
Speaker. He was deported five times, and each time had so little regard
for the law of this country that he reentered that border that we are
supposed to have functional control over.
His procedural history, Mr. Speaker, is every bit as disturbing. In
May of 2011, this defendant was convicted and sentenced to 46 months
imprisonment for illegal reentry again. At the conclusion of that
sentence, he was released from the Bureau of Prisons to a known
sanctuary jurisdiction for the ostensible prosecution of an old drug
case.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, San Francisco did not prosecute that old drug
case. They dismissed it, which surprises exactly no one, and then they
released this defendant.
They did not return him to the Bureau of Prisons. They did not return
him to Federal probation. They did not honor the detainer that had been
placed by ICE. They released him, who was not supposed to be in the
country in the first place, with this horrific criminal history. They
released him so he would be free to walk around and shoot someone's
daughter, which is exactly what he did.
Mr. Speaker, we are given a litany of excuses. I have heard them this
morning, Mr. Speaker, for policies like this. We are told that we need
policies like the one in San Francisco so people will cooperate with
law enforcement.
I want you, Mr. Speaker, to consider just how utterly illogical that
comment is. We need to release known criminals back into society so
society will help us catch known criminals. How absurd is that, that we
are going to release people that should be deported, that are
recidivist felons, so other people will help us catch those who should
be deported and are recidivist felons?
For almost 5 years, Mr. Speaker, I have worked alongside Chairman
Goodlatte, and I have heard a litany of phrases, with almost catatonic
frequency, as if repeating something enough will make it true--phrases,
Mr. Speaker, like ``functional control over the border''--but I have
yet to hear how somebody can reenter five times if you have functional
control over the border.
I have heard we need citizenship for 11 million undocumented aspiring
Americans, as if 11 million of any category can pass a background
check.
I have heard arguments against empowering State and local law
enforcement to assist in the enforcement of our immigration laws, Mr.
Speaker.
Now, stop and think. We trust them to do murder cases, sex assault
cases, kidnapping cases, narcotics trafficking. You even trust them to
provide security, Mr. Speaker, at their own functions back in the
district. But when it comes to immigration law, oh, no. No, sir. We
don't trust you to enforce immigration law. Everything else, including
our own security both here in Washington and back in the district, but
God forbid we trust State and local cops to help us with immigration
law.
The President says we need immigration reform so folks will, to use
his words, Mr. Speaker, come forward, get on the books, get right with
the law.
I want you to ask yourself, what in Mr. Lopez-Sanchez' background
makes you think he would ever come forward? And why in the hell does he
need to be on the books? He is in the Bureau of Prisons. You don't need
him on the books. He is in the Bureau of Prisons. And you had him, and
you let him go.
{time} 1530
Which brings me to my favorite phrase, Mr. Speaker, ``sanctuary
cities.'' It has almost a Utopian sound to it, doesn't it?
Well, as the Speaker knows, the definition of a ``sanctuary'' is a
place of refuge or safety. And my question for folks in San Francisco
and my colleagues who support this policy is: A refuge for whom? A
sanctuary for whom? A refuge for Kate Steinle? A sanctuary for Kate
Steinle? A refuge for a convicted felon with a 25-year-long criminal
history?
So the phrase sounds benign, but it was no sanctuary for her. It may
have been for him, but it sure as hell wasn't for her.
Mr. Speaker, my message to San Francisco would be simple: You won't
honor our detainers, we won't honor your warrants. If detainers are too
much trouble for you to handle, perhaps Federal money will be too much
trouble for you to handle, too. If you can't honor our detainers, you
are not going to get any more money.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns about
the Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act. I am completely appalled
by the tragic and senseless death of
[[Page H5448]]
Kathryn Steinle and those responsible should be held fully accountable.
Dangerous criminals, including those who are in the United States
illegally, should not ever be released into the community.
However, H.R. 3009 does not address this problem. In fact, if H.R.
3009 becomes law it will only make it more difficult for law
enforcement agencies to prevent future tragedies like this one. The
system failed to catch this felon, not because of our nation's
immigration policy, but because there was a breakdown in communication
between agencies. The suspect, who has confessed to the shooting, has
seven prior felony convictions, and has been deported five times, was
apprehended by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and
turned over to the custody of the San Francisco Sheriff's Department at
its request on an outstanding drug warrant. ICE issued a detainer,
requesting to be notified before the suspect's release. Unfortunately,
the suspect was released back onto the streets after the prosecutor
declined to pursue the drug charges.
This individual should never have been released from the custody of
law enforcement, and the events that followed reflect a systemic
failure on the part of local law enforcement and prosecutors. And while
I believe that Congress has a moral responsibility to prevent future
tragedies like this from occurring in the future, this legislation
falls far short in addressing any of the failings in our immigration
system that led to it. If enacted, H.R. 3009 would not have required
local law enforcement to certify that the suspect would be prosecuted
before taking custody of him. Nor would it have required the Bureau of
Prisons or ICE to consult with local law enforcement or prosecutors to
determine whether justice would be better served by having the suspect
deported rather than being transferred to face an unlikely prosecution
for a 20-year-old drug possession charge.
H.R. 3009 purports to address this tragedy by stripping local law
enforcement agencies of necessary federal funding to fulfill its
responsibilities to the public. More specifically, the legislation
would strip funding for state criminal alien assistance programs.
Instead of aiding local law enforcement, this bill would cripple the
efforts of these agencies to support federal law enforcement. In a
naked attempt to score political points, this legislation deliberately
ignores and neglects the roots of the tragedy. As such, a wide
coalition of groups oppose H.R. 3009, including the Major County
Sherriff's Association, the National Fraternal Order of Police, the Law
Enforcement Immigration Task Force, the National League of Cities, the
U.S. Conference of Mayors, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, ACLU, LULAC, and LCCHR.
While I remain committed to substantive and constructive reform of our
nation's immigration system, this legislation falls far short of what
is necessary.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on
the Judiciary and on Homeland Security, I rise in strong opposition to
H.R. 3009, the so-called ``Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act.''
I oppose this legislation because it undermines public safety, fails
to address needed immigration reform, promotes a deportation-only
approach, and will not achieve the Republican leadership's stated
purpose in bringing the bill to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, nothing in H.R. 3009 would have prevented the tragic
killing of an innocent young woman in San Francisco.
Instead, this bill is being rushed to the floor for the sole purpose
of exploiting that tragedy by scapegoating immigrants and undocumented
persons, holding them responsible for the actions of one person, and
avoiding action on comprehensive immigration reform.
It is undisputable that victims of murder deserve justice.
H.R. 3009 the ``Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act'' would push
undocumented immigrants further into the shadows and create and an
environment with heightened threats to our safety and ability to seek
justice.
Stripping state and local law enforcement agencies of key funding and
resources impedes their ability to combat crime and protect our
communities.
Surely, House Republicans do not want to tie the hands of law
enforcement when it comes to preventing and investigating criminal
acts.
Rather than taking positive steps to promote better cooperation and
communication between Federal, State and local authorities, where
appropriate, H.R. 3009 punishes State and local law enforcement
agencies that prioritize public safety and community policing over
immigration enforcement efforts.
Nearly every major law enforcement association in the country, from
the Major Cities Chiefs Associations, the Major Counties Sheriffs
Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the Law Enforcement
Immigration Task Force, opposes H.R. 3009 and the host of other similar
and related proposals set forth by Republicans.
H.R. 3009 simply spreads the myth that all immigrants are criminals
and threats to the public--despite decades of research that demonstrate
the fact that immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes than
native-born persons and are less likely to end up in prison.
In fact, thousands immigrant populations throughout the country have
resided within our country for decades as law-abiding, tax-paying,
hard-working model persons who contribute to our nation's economy and
culture of diversity and inclusiveness.
Additionally, thousands of immigrant populations are actually here
seeking safety and refuge because they too are victims of horrific
abuse, torture and massacre that plagues their native countries.
Yet, once again we are discussing measures that simply seek to
enhance and promote mass criminalization, racial profiling and
discrimination, and deportation of immigrants.
In just this past year, House Republicans have voted to:
1. Deport hundreds of thousands of Dreamers who came to the country
as children and are American in all but name;
2. Deport millions of parents of US citizens who are playing by the
rules, contributing to their communities and working to support their
families; and
3. Deport without due process tens of thousands of unaccompanied
children who came to the US fleeing persecution, extreme violence and
trafficking.
Just this past Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit
issued an opinion dismissing immunity claims by ICE Agents who
unlawfully detained an American citizen.
A U.S. citizen who was born in Guatemala and has resided here since
the 1980s and was naturalized in 1995, was subjected to multiple ICE
detainers in violation of her Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.
On at least two occasions the plaintiff was detained by ICE and
questioned about her citizenship--despite her repeated claims and
assertion of her legal status.
No efforts were made to confirm or investigate prior to her detention
by ICE which allowed her to be booked, strip-searched and held in jail
for up to 48-hours.
``Detain first, question later'' practices and policies should not be
supported--yet H.R. 3009 penalizes law enforcement for refusing to
gather information about one's citizenship or immigration status where
such actions are unwarranted.
President Obama issued a statement today advising that H.R. 3009 will
get vetoed if presented to him for signature.
It cannot be said that immigration reform is being taken seriously,
when proposals are rushed and fail to go through regular order.
Serious reform requires bringing to the floor for debate a
comprehensive immigration bill that reforms our broken immigration
system by making it fairer and more humane, and secures our Northern,
Southern, and maritime borders and our ports.
The House Homeland Security Committee proved this can be done last
year when it reported out of committee on a unanimous vote, H.R. 1417,
the Border Security Results Act of 2014.
Instead of wasting time on legislation that is designed to attract
publicity rather than have any realistic chance of becoming law, we
should be bringing to the floor for debate legislation that will
address the real problems and challenges facing the American people.
Instead of squandering valuable floor time on this irresponsible
legislation, the House should be allowed to work its will on issues
that matter, like raising the minimum wage, protecting the right to
vote of all Americans, and passing criminal justice reform that builds
trust and respect between law enforcement agencies and the communities
they are to protect and serve.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3009,
the so-called ``Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act.''
This misguided legislation is purportedly a response to the
heartbreaking and tragic shooting of Kathryn Steinle earlier this
month. However, the reality is that this legislation cynically uses
this isolated incident to scapegoat all undocumented immigrants and
undermine community policing. Specifically, H.R. 3009 would withhold
critical funding for State and local law enforcement agencies as well
as victims of crimes unless these jurisdictions bear the burden of
enforcing Federal immigration statutes.
If passed, this bill would tie the hands of local law enforcement
agencies who are working to promote safety and build community trust.
Requiring local police to enforce Federal immigration laws often times
dissuades undocumented individuals from reporting crimes, offering
testimony, and serving as witnesses in court proceedings. For example,
the evidence shows that victims of domestic violence will be afraid to
report these crimes to police for fear of deportation. A survey
conducted by the National Domestic Violence Hotline in 2013 found that
nearly 50-percent of foreign born individuals were afraid to seek help
because of their
[[Page H5449]]
immigrant status. As Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson
testified earlier this month, ``mandating through legislation the
conduct of sheriffs and police chiefs'' is not the way to go.
Instead of pushing these failed policies, we need to come together
and pass bipartisan legislation to address our broken immigration
system. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to HR
3009. First and foremost, my heartfelt sympathies go out to the Steinle
family for the loss of their daughter, Kate. There is no question that
her death is tragic and unjust.
However, this bill neither avenges her death nor effectively prevents
similar tragedies from happening in the future. Absent comprehensive
immigration reform, we are forcing local police to act as federal
immigration officials. That is wrong, wrong, wrong.
I represent one of the largest agriculture districts in CA that is
dependent on migrant workers who toil the fields to feed our nation. We
also have a significant gang violence problem in ``the Salad Bowl of
the World'', yet, I am not aware that any of our local law enforcement
officials think this bill is a good idea.
In some of the harshest neighborhoods, our local law enforcement
officials have established satellite facilities and programs for the
kids in the neighborhood that provide alternatives to joining gangs.
This type of 21st Century Policing encourages community partnerships,
problem-solving and organizational transformation.
Mr. Speaker, we have already seen the willingness of the Republicans
to shut down the government over immigration issues by failing to fund
the Department of Homeland Security for 4 months. While compromising
the safety of our communities and the effectiveness of our local police
might be good for Donald Trump, it is bad for America.
I urge a no vote.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, the recent killing of Kathryn Steinle
in San Francisco is a tragedy, and my thoughts are with her family
during this very difficult time.
Unfortunately, the Majority has chosen to politicize this tragedy by
bringing this misguided and unacceptable bill to the floor.
H.R. 3009 would withhold Department of Justice grants specifically
targeted to enhance public safety, support community policing, and
assist crime victims from states and law enforcement agencies that do
not collect information regarding a person's immigration status.
We can and should ensure that serious criminals who are dangerous and
enforcement priorities for ICE are not released from the custody of
local law enforcement. However, it is misguided and counterproductive
to force local law enforcement officers to inquire about a person's
immigration status at any time and for any reason in order to be
eligible to receive critical public safety funding.
It is also wrong and irresponsible that this bill misrepresents the
immigrant community as one comprised entirely of criminals. In fact,
decades of research show that immigrants are less likely to commit
serious crimes than native-born persons.
Earlier this year, many Republicans insisted that our Homeland
Security Appropriations bill include anti-immigrant riders, and
threatened to shut down the Department of Homeland Security if they did
not get their way. Sadly, H.R. 3009 is just more of the same from the
Majority, who apparently think it is more important to incite hatred of
our immigrant population for political purposes than it is to keep our
communities safe and secure.
If we truly want to deal with our broken immigration system, we must
pass comprehensive immigration reform that treats immigrants humanely,
focuses on deporting those who threaten our safety and national
security, and better secures our borders. Unfortunately, the House
Majority has no interest in passing such reforms and instead chooses to
rob local law enforcement of the money they need to keep our
constituents safe from harm.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 370, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. JEFFRIES. I am opposed to it in its current form.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Jeffries moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3009 to the
Committee on the Judiciary, with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
Add at the end the following:
SEC.__. PROTECTING LOCAL COMMUNITIES FROM CUTS TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT.
The Attorney General may not reduce or eliminate, under
this Act or the amendment made by this Act, any sums provided
to a State (or a political subdivision of a State) if the
Attorney General determines that such reduction or
elimination would result in--
(1) an increase in the overall crime rate in that State or
political subdivision, including an increase in domestic
violence, sex trafficking, or crimes against children; or
(2) a decrease in the number of trained law enforcement
officers in that State or political subdivision, including
community police, that are available to protect the public.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill,
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted,
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
The murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco was a national tragedy
that certainly shocked the conscience of America. We must continue to
mourn her passing. We must continue to stand behind her family.
We must continue to make sure that her killer is prosecuted to the
full extent of the law, but we should not respond with irresponsible
public policy.
Our Founders indicated that the House of Representatives is supposed
to reflect the passions of the people, but the passions should be
properly channeled into an appropriate legislative vehicle.
On December 14, 2012, 20 children were brutally gunned down in Sandy
Hook Elementary School. More than 30,000 additional Americans have died
as a result of gun violence since that fateful day. Mr. Speaker, 952
days have passed. This House has done nothing.
On June 27, 2013, the Senate passed a bipartisan comprehensive
immigration reform bill, 52 Democrats, 14 Republicans, 2 Independents.
That bill would have secured our borders. That bill would have reduced
the deficit by more than $850 billion over 20 years. That bill would
have required undocumented immigrants to learn English, pay back taxes,
pass a criminal background check, and then get at the back of the line.
Mr. Speaker, 757 days have passed. This House has done nothing.
Instead, we are here today considering a misguided legislative
response to a terrible tragedy. That is why I offer this amendment,
which will prevent the elimination or reduction of funds to State or
local law enforcement organizations if the Attorney General determines
that the elimination of funding would result in an overall increase in
the crime rate, particularly with respect to domestic violence, sex
trafficking, and crimes against children, or if it would result in a
decrease in the number of trained law enforcement officers on American
streets.
The COPS and Byrne-JAG programs are essential to public safety and
should not be used as a blunt force weapon to carry out a reckless and
irresponsible antiimmigrant agenda. That is why the National Fraternal
Order of Police, the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, and the
Major County Sheriffs' Association of America all oppose the underlying
legislation.
In a letter dated July 15, the National Fraternal Order of Police
expressed their ``strong opposition to any amendment or piece of
legislation that would penalize law enforcement agencies by withholding
Federal funding or resources from law enforcement assistance programs
in an effort to coerce a policy change in so-called sanctuary cities.''
In offering this amendment, I stand with law enforcement. In offering
this amendment, I stand with the Statue of Liberty that sits in New
York Harbor with the inscription ``Give me your tired, your poor, your
huddled masses yearning to breathe free.''
In offering this amendment, I stand with the United States
Constitution and the 10th Amendment limitation on the Federal
Government's ability to commandeer State or local police authorities
into the service of Federal areas of enforcement.
[[Page H5450]]
In offering this amendment, I stand with the Scripture in Matthew
25:35, where it says: I was hungry, and you gave me food. I was
thirsty, and you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you welcomed me.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation is withdrawn.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
motion to recommit. It would give the discretion to the Attorney
General of the United States and the ability to determine whether or
not such reductions provided in this legislation would take place.
This is the same Attorney General of the United States who is new to
the position, but has already indicated her unwillingness to enforce
title VIII, section 1373, of the United States Code related to the
requirement that cities and all other government agencies communicate
with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
The Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act helps to address one of
the main factors contributing to the collapse of immigration
enforcement in the United States.
Hundreds of sanctuary cities are violating Federal law by prohibiting
their law enforcement officers from sharing information with Federal
immigration authorities to enable the removal of unlawful and criminal
aliens.
This bill will finally establish penalties to persuade these
jurisdictions to comply with longstanding Federal law.
Sanctuary cities present a clear and present danger to their
citizens. In the first 8 months of 2014, they released 8,145 aliens who
the Department of Homeland Security wanted to deport.
Very quickly, almost a quarter of these aliens were arrested again
for new criminal offenses. Most recently, San Francisco's refusal to
honor a DHS detainer resulted in the tragic death of Kate Steinle.
This is not an isolated incident. This is something that will
continue again and again and again unless these cities start
cooperating with law enforcement.
And, yes, there are many other things that need to be done to protect
American citizens from unlawful criminal aliens besides this bill.
Those should be brought to the floor as well.
But this bill represents an important first step in making rogue
jurisdictions comply with Federal law and safeguard their communities.
We will take further steps in the months ahead to ensure enforcement of
immigration laws, but we have to start today.
Federal grants--and there are three categories of grants covered by
this legislation--are not entitlements to the States. They are
gratuities that Congress has chosen to give to the States.
The Supreme Court has held that Congress can place restrictions or
conditions on the receipt of Federal funds to further policies that are
aimed at protecting the general welfare.
I support these law enforcement grants, but the solution to potential
loss of these funds is simple: eliminate the policies that violate
Federal law, eliminate the policies that prohibit information sharing
with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, and they will
receive this funding. They will also receive safer communities,
communities that are sanctuaries for law-abiding citizens, not
sanctuaries for criminals.
This legislation must be passed to protect American citizens and do
right by them and do it in honor of people like Kate Steinle, who gave
her life because of these bad policies.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit, support this
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, and the question on
agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 181,
nays 239, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 465]
YEAS--181
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--239
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
[[Page H5451]]
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--13
Bishop (UT)
Brady (PA)
Carter (TX)
Clawson (FL)
Collins (NY)
Denham
Hinojosa
Israel
Kaptur
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Schakowsky
Speier
Stewart
{time} 1607
Messrs. CONAWAY, FINCHER, STIVERS, and JOHNSON of Ohio changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. GABBARD and Mr. SHERMAN changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241,
noes 179, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 466]
AYES--241
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bera
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Keating
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--179
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Bishop (UT)
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Calvert
Carter (TX)
Clawson (FL)
Conyers
Hinojosa
Israel
Kaptur
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Speier
Stewart
{time} 1619
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 466, I was unable to vote due
to a malfunction of my voting card. Had I been able to vote, I would
have voted yes on rollcall 466.
____________________