[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.
____________________