[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 153 (Tuesday, October 20, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7312-S7314]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



           Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Bill

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise again in strong support of the Stop 
Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, which we will be voting 
on later today. I was here on the floor yesterday laying out the strong 
case in support of that, talking to many colleagues before this vote 
today, as I have been for the past several days.
  Today I rise to focus on some arguments from the other side that are 
erroneous and misleading, quite frankly, and to debunk those arguments 
so everyone has the full, true, and clear picture of why this 
legislation is so needed.
  First, I have heard a few of my colleagues talk about the need for 
Federal and local authorities to do a better job of working together. 
For instance, Senator Durbin, who just left the floor, said: ``Federal 
and local authorities must do a better job of communicating and 
coordinating so that undocumented immigrants with serious criminal 
records are detained and deported, period.''
  Similarly, Senator Feinstein said: ``It is very clear to me that we 
have to improve cooperation between local, State, and Federal law 
enforcement.''
  Let me say that I completely agree with them, and they are laying out 
a strong case for this legislation, not against it, because we need to 
do something about the cause of the noncooperation, the obstacle 
between that full cooperation, which absolutely needs to happen every 
day. Simply wishing for a better outcome isn't going to make it happen.
  The fact is, there are dozens of sanctuary cities--jurisdictions that 
have those policies--that were cooperating in the past and that want to 
cooperate, but they have been faced with lawsuits from the ACLU and 
others and court decisions wherein local law enforcement officials 
could be held liable for violating an individual's constitutional 
rights simply for honoring a detainer request from ICE. That is 
ridiculous. That is an abusive threat. Our legislation on the floor 
today is going to remove that threat.
  The Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act allows for that 
cooperation between local and Federal authorities to resume again 
because section 4 of the bill will facilitate State and local 
compliance with the ICE detainer and remove that onerous and 
unreasonable threat. Cooperation has been stifled by lawsuits aimed at 
bullying local law enforcement, and this bill will grant local law 
enforcement the authority to clearly comply with ICE detainers without 
threat of liability. It will protect them from that liability for 
simply complying with ICE detainers.
  I will remind my colleagues that it will do nothing to infringe on an 
individual's civil or constitutional rights. They still have the same 
ability to pursue those against ICE or anyone else they choose.
  That is why this legislation is supported by people who know 
something about what needs to happen for local and Federal authorities 
to cooperate. Who am I talking about? The Federal Law Enforcement 
Officers Association--they know what they are talking about. The 
International Union of Police Associations--they live it every day. The 
National Association of Police Organizations and the National Sheriffs' 
Association--don't my colleagues think they know what is needed on the 
ground? They do. And because they do, they strongly support this 
legislation.
  Second, some colleagues on the other side argue that this bill won't 
do anything; instead, we need so-called comprehensive immigration 
reform such as the Gang of 8 bill. But the Gang of 8 bill that my 
colleagues are pushing--1,200 pages long when it passed the Senate--
didn't do anything to resolve this issue of sanctuary cities. It didn't 
do anything to change the abusive lawsuits I am speaking about. It 
didn't do anything to encourage Federal and local authorities to 
cooperate in real time--absolutely nothing. That is just the fact, once 
we read the 1,200 pages. All the Gang of 8 bill does is lead with a big 
amnesty--an amnesty overnight--for about 11 million illegal immigrants 
in our country today. So that comprehensive immigration reform bill--
the Gang of 8 bill or whatever we want to call it--does nothing in this 
area that is so crucial to fix, does nothing about sanctuary cities, 
does nothing to remove these abusive lawsuits as obstacles to the clear 
and full cooperation between Federal, State, and local authorities, 
which even folks on the other side of the bill admit needs to happen 
and is a problem right now.
  There are lots of myths about our bill versus the facts.
  With that in mind, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record a myth v. fact sheet that lays out clearly the myths, the 
arguments made against this legislation, and the real facts of the Stop 
Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, S. 2146.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           Myth v. Fact--Stop Sanctuary Policies Act (S.2146)

       1. S.2146 does not punish illegal immigrants who come 
     forward to report crimes.
       Myth: Under S.2146, ``reporting crimes or otherwise 
     interacting with law enforcement could lead to immigration 
     detention and deportation.'' \1\

[[Page S7313]]

       Fact: S.2146 provides that if a jurisdiction has a policy 
     that local law enforcement will not inquire about the 
     immigration status of crime victims or witnesses, such 
     jurisdiction will not be deemed a sanctuary jurisdiction and 
     will not lose any federal funds. See section 3(e).
       2. S.2146 does not require local law enforcement to carry 
     out federal immigration responsibilities.
       Myth: S.2146 would ``require[e] state and local law 
     enforcement to carry out the federal government's immigration 
     enforcement responsibilities,'' and thus ``the federal 
     government would be substituting its judgment for the 
     judgment of state and local law enforcement agencies.'' \2\
       Fact: The bill does not require local law enforcement ``to 
     carry out federal immigration responsibilities.'' Removing 
     illegal immigrants remains the exclusive province of the 
     federal government. The bill simply withholds certain federal 
     funds from jurisdictions that prohibit their local law 
     enforcement officers from cooperating with federal officials 
     in the limited circumstance of honoring an immigration 
     detainer.
       It is politicians in sanctuary jurisdictions who, by tying 
     the hands of local law enforcement, are ``substituting 
     [their] judgment for the judgment of state and local law 
     enforcement.''
       3. S.2146 is necessary to keep dangerous criminals off of 
     the streets.
       Myth: ``Congress should focus on overdue reforms of the 
     broken immigration system to allow state and local law 
     enforcement to focus their resources on true threats--
     dangerous criminals and criminal organizations.'' \3\
       Fact: Sanctuary cities are the ones preventing local law 
     enforcement from focusing on dangerous criminals and criminal 
     organizations--by forbidding local law enforcement officers 
     from holding such criminals.
       The illegal immigrant who killed Kate Steinle explained 
     that he chose to live in San Francisco because it was a 
     sanctuary city, and he knew San Francisco would not take 
     action against him He was right. Three months before Kate's 
     death, the federal government asked San Francisco officials 
     to hold him, but San Francisco refused.
       4. S.2146 does not force the U.S. to bear liability for 
     unconstitutional actions by local law enforcement.
       Myth: S.2146 includes ``provisions requiring DHS to absorb 
     all liability in lawsuits brought by individuals unlawfully 
     detained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.'' \4\
       Fact: If a lawsuit alleges that a local officer knowingly 
     violated Fourth Amendment or other constitutional rights, 
     under S.2146, the individual officer, not the federal 
     government, will bear all liability. See section 4(c).
       For some lawsuits, the U.S. will be substituted as 
     defendant--specifically, suits alleging that that the 
     immigration detainer should not have been issued. But such a 
     claim could already be brought against the U.S. under 
     existing law; thus, S.2146 does not create a new source of 
     liability for the federal government. S.2146 simply provides 
     that if the federal government made the error, the federal 
     government should be the defendant.
       5. S.2146 is fully consistent with the Fourth Amendment and 
     preserves individuals' rights to sue for constitutional 
     violations.
       Myth: ``The Fourth Amendment provides that the government 
     cannot hold anyone in jail without getting a warrant or the 
     approval of a judge.'' \5\
       Fact: The Constitution requires probable cause to detain an 
     individual, which can be established by a judicial a warrant 
     issued before the arrest or by a demonstration of probable 
     cause after the arrest. Otherwise police could never arrest 
     someone whom they see committing a crime.
       S.2146 does not alter the requirement for probable cause. 
     In fact, S.2146 explicitly preserves an individual's ability 
     to sue if he or she is held without probable cause or has 
     suffered any other violation of a constitutional right.

                                Endnotes

       1. Email from Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service 
     (Oct. 19, 2015).
       2. Letter from Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force (Oct. 
     15, 2015).
       3. Letter from Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force (Oct. 
     15, 2015).
       4. Letter from ACLU (Oct. 19, 2015).
       5. Letter from ACLU (Oct. 19, 2015).

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, let me highlight the two biggest ones. The 
first one is that our legislation would somehow punish and make it more 
difficult for illegal persons to report crimes and cooperate with local 
law enforcement. That is a pure myth. What is the fact? Well, read the 
bill, as the American people suggest. Read the bill. Our bill, S. 2146, 
specifically provides that if a jurisdiction has a policy that local 
law enforcement will not inquire about the immigration status of crime 
victims or witnesses, such jurisdiction will not be deemed a sanctuary 
jurisdiction and it will not lose Federal funds over that. So that 
argument is simply a myth.
  The second argument often made is that somehow this legislation is 
requiring local law enforcement to carry out Federal immigration 
responsibilities. Again, that is a pure myth, a purely erroneous 
argument, and if we read the bill, S. 2146, we will see it is simply 
not true. The bill does not require local law enforcement ``to carry 
out Federal immigration responsibilities'' in any way, shape, or form. 
Removing illegal immigrants remains the exclusive province of the 
Federal Government. The bill simply withholds certain Federal funds 
from jurisdictions that prohibit exactly the cooperation that our 
opponents on the other side say is so necessary and correctly say is so 
necessary. So that, again, is the fact versus the myth that is being 
propagated.
  Again, we have several myths versus facts as part of the record, and 
I urge everyone, starting with our colleagues, Democrats and 
Republicans, to study it carefully.
  This is an important issue. Sanctuary cities are a real problem, and 
we need to fix that problem to move forward. So I urge my colleagues to 
look carefully at this issue of what is driving these sanctuary cities 
policies. Our legislation will take up those drivers, those obstacles, 
will solve those problems, and will result in the cooperation at all 
levels of law enforcement that we desperately need.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes later today so we can push forward 
with this important and critical legislation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, we will finally vote on the 
nomination of Judge Ann Donnelly to be a Federal district judge in the 
Eastern District of New York. She was first nominated for this judicial 
emergency vacancy nearly a year ago, back in November 2014. She was 
voted out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote over 4 
months ago on June 4, but since then she has been blocked from 
receiving a vote on the Senate floor. Senator Schumer has twice sought 
to secure a vote for Judge Donnelly through unanimous consent requests 
in July and September, but was blocked by Republicans both times. No 
substantive reason was given for this obstruction, which is hurting 
both our justice system and the people who seek justice in those 
courts.
  Judge Donnelly is not the only New York nominee ready for a vote 
today on the Executive Calendar. LaShann Hall, a partner at a prominent 
national law firm, was nominated to the other judicial emergency 
vacancy in the Eastern District of New York last November as well. She 
was voted out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote at the 
same time as Judge Donnelly, and she is still awaiting a vote.
  Also waiting for a vote is Lawrence Vilardo, who has been nominated 
to the vacancy in the Western District of New York in Buffalo. The 
Western District of New York has one of the busiest caseloads in the 
country and handles more criminal cases than Washington, DC, Boston, or 
Cleveland; yet there is not a single active Federal judge in that 
district, and the court is staying afloat only through the voluntary 
efforts of two judges on senior status who are hearing cases in their 
retirement. Despite these circumstances, Republicans continue to hold 
Mr. Vilardo's nomination up as well. There is no good reason why these 
two other noncontroversial New York nominees could not be confirmed 
today. The same goes for the rest of the noncontroversial judicial 
nominees on the Executive Calendar.
  In the Judiciary Committee, I have continued to work with Chairman 
Grassley to hold hearings on judicial nominees. We will hold a hearing 
tomorrow for four more judicial nominees. But the pattern we have seen 
over the last 9 months is that, once nominees are voted out of 
committee and awaiting confirmation on the floor, the Republican 
leadership refuses to schedule votes. So far this year, we have only 
confirmed seven judges. That is not even one judge per month. Some 
Republicans claim that this is reasonable, but by any measure, it is 
not. By this same point in 2007, when I was chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee and we had a Republican President, the Senate had already 
confirmed 33 judges. At this current rate, by the end of the year, the 
Senate will have confirmed the fewest number of judges in more than a 
half century.
  This pattern is especially egregious in light of the rising number of 
judicial vacancies. In fact, as a direct result of Republican 
obstruction, vacancies have

[[Page S7314]]

increased by more than 50 percent, from 43 to 67. That means there are 
not enough judges to handle the overwhelming number of cases in many of 
our Federal courtrooms. Additionally, the number of Federal court 
vacancies deemed to be ``judicial emergencies'' by the nonpartisan 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has increased by 158 percent 
since the beginning of the year. There are now 30 judicial emergency 
vacancies that are affecting communities across the country.
  The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights recently issued a 
memorandum documenting the real life impact of the Senate Republicans' 
obstruction on the judicial confirmation process. Three States where 
communities are most hurt are Texas, Alabama, and Florida. Texas, for 
example, has nine judicial vacancies--with seven of them deemed to be 
judicial emergencies. Incredibly, one of the district court positions 
has been vacant for over 4 years, and a fifth circuit position in Texas 
has been vacant for more than 3 years. The memorandum reports that, in 
the Eastern District of Texas, the delays caused by the vacancy in that 
court has placed greater pressure on criminal defendants to forego 
trials and simply plead guilty to avoid uncertain and lengthy pretrial 
detentions. That is not justice.
  Similarly, Alabama has five current vacancies that remain unfilled, 
and Florida has three. These rising vacancies are leading to an 
unsustainable situation in too many states. As Chief Judge Federico 
Moreno of the Southern District of Florida noted, ``It's like an 
emergency room in a hospital. The judges are used to it and people come 
in and out and get good treatment. But the question is, can you sustain 
it? Eventually you burn out.''
  I urge the majority leader to schedule votes for the 14 other 
consensus judicial nominees on the Executive Calendar without further 
delay. If the Republican obstruction continues and if home State 
Senators cannot persuade the majority leader to schedule a vote for 
their nominees soon, then it is unlikely that even highly qualified 
nominees with Republican support will be confirmed by the end of the 
year. These are nominees that members of the leader's own party want 
confirmed. Let us work together to confirm nominees and help restore 
our third branch to full strength.
  Shortly we will begin voting on Judge Ann Donnelly to fill a judicial 
emergency vacancy in the Federal District Court for the Eastern 
District of New York. Since September 2014, she has served as a judge 
on the New York County Supreme Court. Judge Donnelly previously 
presided on the Kings County Supreme Court from 2013 to 2014 and in the 
Bronx County Supreme Court from 2009 to 2013. Prior to becoming a 
judge, she worked at the New York County District Attorney's Office for 
25 years as an assistant district attorney, senior trial counsel, and 
as chief of the Family Violence Child Abuse Bureau. She has the support 
of her two home State Senators, Senator Schumer and Senator Gillibrand. 
She was voted out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote on 
June 4, 2015. I will vote to support her nomination.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is, 
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Ann Donnelly, 
of New York, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern 
District of New York?
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Florida 
(Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. 
Shaheen) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 279 Ex.]

                                YEAS--95

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Blunt
     Sullivan
       

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Graham
     Rubio
     Shaheen
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________