[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 146 (Thursday, September 19, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H5498-H5505]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  NO BAILOUT FOR SANCTUARY CITIES ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 5717.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1455 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5717.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cloud) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1635


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 5717) to provide that sanctuary jurisdictions that provide 
benefits to aliens who are present in the United States without lawful 
status under the immigration laws are ineligible for Federal funds 
intended to benefit such aliens, with Mr. Cloud in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read 
the first time.
  General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) and the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in just 3\1/2\ years, President Biden and his border 
czar, Kamala Harris, have allowed more than 7.6 million unvetted, 
illegal aliens into the United States. That is the equivalent of adding 
an entirely new State almost the size of Arizona, our 14th largest 
State, with nine congressional districts. Those not engaged in criminal 
activities are almost entirely destitute and are overwhelming public 
schools, hospitals, food banks, public housing, and social services.
  This began the very first day of this administration, when Biden and 
Harris rescinded the remain in Mexico policy, ordered construction on 
the border wall halted, and literally instructed ICE to stop enforcing 
court-ordered deportations.
  Today, ICE remains hog-tied in discharging its duty to remove even 
criminal illegal aliens from our midst. Before they can do so, they are 
now required to first develop a full profile of the criminal and to 
identify mitigating circumstances, such as if the criminal has high 
blood pressure or is a caregiver.
  A former top ICE official told the Judiciary Committee that the 
Biden-Harris policies have made immigration enforcement more dangerous, 
more difficult to carry out, and less efficient overall. The flood of 
illegal mass migration at our southern border has thinned the ranks of 
ICE officers available to enforce laws within the interior because so 
many have been siphoned off to process illegals being allowed into our 
country.
  When constituents ask me how this could be happening to their 
communities, I have to remind them that if they voted for Biden and 
Harris, this is exactly what they voted for, and if that surprises 
them, they weren't paying attention.
  In 2019, Kamala Harris told the ACLU she would slash funding for 
immigration detention and close private immigration detention centers. 
As ABC News has been forced to confess, Harris did, in fact, endorse 
taxpayer funding to provide transgender surgeries for illegal aliens 
detained in the United States.
  Americans are beginning to realize the severe danger to public safety 
posed by cities and States that refuse to notify ICE so that dangerous 
criminals can be turned over to them for deportation once they have 
served out their sentences, as the law requires. Instead, the woke left 
releases these criminals back onto our streets and into our communities 
to prey on new victims.
  Instead of ICE being able to take these criminals into custody while 
they are disarmed and in custody, ICE agents, instead, must track them 
down and confront them when they are armed and at large. This is the 
very essence of the sanctuary policies that so many Democrats, 
including Biden and Harris, have supported and facilitated.
  Although current law already prohibits jurisdictions from refusing to 
cooperate with Federal immigration officials, jurisdictions controlled 
by leftist officials continue to do so. This bill changes that.
  The growing list of Americans victimized by criminal aliens released 
back onto our streets, in defiance of Federal law, is truly appalling.
  According to ICE, Cook County, Illinois, saw law enforcement release 
1,070 criminal aliens and immigration violators in fiscal year 2019 
despite requests by ICE to notify the agency before they are released 
from local custody. One of those criminals was a Mexican national who 
had been arrested for theft. After his release from custody, that 
illegal alien lured a 3-year-old girl into a McDonald's bathroom and 
sexually assaulted her. Had Chicago authorities cooperated with Federal 
officials, that man, a convicted aggravated felon who previously had 
been deported, could have been in ICE custody and instead removed to 
Mexico.
  In January 2023, a 27-year-old illegal alien from Mexico was allowed 
to remain in the United States through the Deferred Action for 
Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program despite his arrest for domestic 
violence in New Jersey. Local law enforcement ignored an ICE detainer 
and released him, where he went on to murder his girlfriend and a 
married couple.
  Without this legislation, we should brace ourselves for what is to 
come. In 2019, Kamala Harris committed to ending ICE detainers. H.R. 
5717 would prevent any jurisdiction from ever doing so again.

  Specifically, this bill renders sanctuary jurisdictions ineligible to 
receive certain taxpayer dollars that would bankroll illegal 
immigration in American communities. By denying certain Federal funding 
to jurisdictions that prohibit or restrict their cooperation with 
Federal immigration officials, the bill encourages sanctuary 
jurisdictions to end their anti-enforcement policies in favor of 
working with the Department of Homeland Security.
  Today, Democrats will present far-fetched hypotheticals about how 
Republicans want to strip funding from program after program. On the 
contrary--to continue to receive these

[[Page H5499]]

funds, the jurisdiction would simply need to follow existing law. Isn't 
that what a nation of laws is all about?
  It is absurd that a bill like this is even necessary. As we have seen 
time and time again, far-left jurisdictions would prefer to release 
dangerous criminal aliens back onto American streets than to deport 
them once they have served their sentence, as Federal law requires. 
This bill helps end this dangerous and tragic absurdity.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, rather than bring up an immigration bill that attempts 
to secure our border or address the broken immigration system, the 
Republican majority has brought us a bill that would simply bankrupt 
States and localities that have chosen a different path on immigration 
than the Republican agenda.
  I am not surprised that this bill offers no solutions, though. 
Republicans have made it very clear that they are more interested in 
trying to scapegoat immigrants and score cheap political points, 
especially in these weeks leading up to the election, than in working 
to solve problems.
  This legislation would prevent so-called sanctuary jurisdictions--in 
some cases entire States, like New York, California, and North Dakota--
from receiving any Federal funds that might ``benefit'' undocumented 
immigrants, resulting in drastic cuts to education, transportation, law 
enforcement, and healthcare. This bill is being rushed to the floor 
without following regular order. Given how poorly written this bill is, 
it is clear why its supporters might have wanted to shield it from 
greater scrutiny.
  The title of the bill implies that it is narrowly crafted and 
targeted at Federal funds for undocumented immigrants in sanctuary 
jurisdictions. In reality, however, its impact would be much, much 
wider. It would target not only States led by Democrats like New York, 
California, and Illinois, but Republican strongholds like Utah and 
North Dakota, and its impact would be felt across the country.
  Let's think about how this bill would affect our communities. For 
example, local police protect the public. They do not check a person's 
immigration status when responding to a call for help or answering a 
911 call. As a result, under this bill, State and local police forces 
will lose millions of dollars in Byrne JAG grants from the Department 
of Justice, one of the main ways that the Federal Government supports 
police equipment purchases, training, and officer salaries.
  Likewise, States are required by law to provide students with a K-12 
public education regardless of immigration status. As such, States 
receive billions of dollars from the Department of Education to fund K-
12 education. Under this bill, any so-called sanctuary jurisdiction 
would lose this funding for all its students, regardless of their 
immigration status.
  One more example that highlights how truly absurd this bill is: Last 
year, the Federal Government provided the States of California and New 
York, both of which are considered sanctuary jurisdictions under this 
bill, with $5 billion and $2.3 billion respectively to build and 
maintain highways, bridges, and pedestrian infrastructure. This funding 
benefits all of the States' residents, including undocumented 
immigrants, which puts the funding at risk under this bill.

                              {time}  1645

  My Republican colleagues will argue that we are reading the bill too 
broadly, but we know this is exactly what Republicans want to do.
  The Trump administration has previously tried to condition Department 
of Justice funding on States changing their sanctuary city policies. 
Further, this concept is straight out of Project 2025, which 
specifically calls on a potential future Trump administration to try to 
coerce States and localities into adopting anti-immigrant policies by 
withholding Federal funds.
  Republicans used the term ``sanctuary city'' the same way that Donald 
Trump tells stories about immigrants eating cats and dogs. They want 
their constituents to be afraid of immigrants and to imply that some 
cities harbor criminals and refuse to comply with Federal law. The 
truth is, in some cities, gaining the trust of immigrant communities is 
a key component of good policing.
  The Major Cities Chiefs Association argues that when local police are 
viewed as colluding with immigration authorities, they may spur 
``increased crime against immigrants in the broader community, create a 
class of silent victims, and eliminate the potential for assistance 
from immigrants in solving crimes or preventing future terroristic 
acts.'' Following this guidance, many cities across the country have 
adopted policies that limit contact between local police and Federal 
immigration agencies.
  However, regardless of how someone may feel about sanctuary 
jurisdictions and community trust policies, the answer is not a blunt 
instrument that claws billions of dollars away from these States and 
localities. Our constituents send us here to fight for their interests, 
not to take away funds they depend on.
  This is a dangerous and overly broad bill.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. LaLota), the author of this bill.
  Mr. LaLOTA. Mr. Chair, you break it, you bought it. That is not a 
Republican saying. That is not a Democrat saying. That is just a widely 
accepted premise in our culture: You break it, you bought it.
  Let me tell you, Mr. Chair, nobody broke the border like President 
Biden and Vice President and border czar Kamala Harris, along with the 
mayors and Governors of sanctuary cities and States.
  President Biden broke the border when he repealed 64 very effective 
Trump-era policies. Biden repealed remain in Mexico. Biden applied 
lower asylum standards. Biden stopped border wall construction. Biden 
even repositioned border agents away from the border to be in migrant 
processing centers behind desks just to process more and more migrants 
into the country.
  By reversing Trump's very effective policies, President Biden and 
border czar and Vice President Kamala Harris have created a wide-open 
border for illegal immigration and asylum abuse.
  The immediate consequence of these actions was a surge in illegal 
border crossings, reaching levels we have never seen before. Now, every 
State, including New York, nearly 2,000 miles away from the southwest 
border, has become a border State.
  While the Biden-Harris administration has done its damage, sanctuary 
city jurisdictions are only exacerbating this crisis even further. When 
cities like New York adopt sanctuary policies and forbid local law 
enforcement from coordinating with Federal officials on enforcing 
immigration law, they send a huge signal to those who are in our 
country illegally or those who would break our asylum laws.
  The message is: Come to New York. Come because we will not enforce 
Federal immigration law here.
  The migrants sure got the message. Mr. Chair, 100,000 migrants have 
passed through New York City since the spring of 2022. At the height of 
the crisis, there were over 64,000 migrants in the city's care, all at 
the taxpayers' expense.
  New York's Governor recently proposed $5 billion more to address New 
York's migrant crisis at the same time she proposed cutting from our 
kids' public schools. Yet, New York State officials did absolutely 
nothing to change New York City's and New York State's sanctuary 
policies. Despite the uncontrolled crisis across the five boroughs, New 
York City has refused to change its sanctuary policies, the very 
policies incentivizing illegal immigration.
  Those illegally crossing the border or who feign asylum to be paroled 
into the interior of our country know that if they make it to New York, 
they will be given taxpayer-funded food, shelter, healthcare, 
transportation, and social services. Hardworking American taxpayers 
will be the ones footing the bill, Mr. Chair.
  If we do not put an end to these sanctuary city policies, that number 
will continue to balloon, costing families even more, all during a time 
of significant financial hardship and record inflation. New Yorkers, 
and indeed all

[[Page H5500]]

taxpayers, should not have to bear this burden.
  Schools are at capacity. Our cities are overrun. Our law enforcement 
is stretched to the limit. Our social services are being overwhelmed. 
Our hospitals are overburdened. Local budgets are strained to the 
breaking point. Homeless Americans are having trouble accessing shelter 
services. Migrant children, many unaccompanied, are being exploited by 
smugglers, traffickers, and violent gangs, and they are being put to 
work illegally or, worse, abused and trafficked.
  Instead of changing course, cities like New York have the audacity to 
turn around and demand more money from taxpayers from nonsanctuary 
jurisdictions to fund their failed sanctuary policies.
  Today, Mr. Chair, enough is enough. My No Bailout for Sanctuary 
Cities Act is about accountability. It is about ensuring that cities 
and States that refuse to enforce Federal laws are not rewarded with 
Federal dollars related to their defiance.
  Let the policymakers from sanctuary jurisdictions hear us loud and 
clear: If you incentivize illegal immigration in your city, knowing 
full well the migrants will come, don't come to the Federal Government 
for a bailout.
  Let me make something also abundantly clear: This legislation will 
prohibit Federal funding from going toward fueling the root causes of 
the migrant crisis. In no way, Mr. Chair, can this legislation be 
construed to harm school systems, law enforcement, and other benefits 
for American citizens. Those entities will remain eligible for Federal 
funding under this legislation.
  Mr. Chair, America is like a ship taking on water. My colleagues from 
the other side of the aisle, their solution is to merely build a bigger 
boat. My solution, Mr. Chair, is to plug the hole causing the crisis in 
the first place by cutting off Federal funds that would only exacerbate 
the crisis.
  Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for his support of my legislation, 
and I urge my colleagues to support the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities 
Act.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let's be real. The reason these migrants are in New York is because 
they were bused there involuntarily by Governor Abbott of Texas.
  Mr. LaLota's bill would remove from New York all Federal funding for 
schools, all funding for transportation, because it says that in a 
sanctuary State or city, anything that may benefit migrants will not be 
paid. As I said in my opening remarks, roads benefit migrants like 
anybody else, so no funding for roads, bridges, and highways. Schools 
benefit migrants like anybody else, so no funding for the schools.
  This bill would essentially take all Federal funding away from New 
York State. Why Mr. LaLota would introduce a bill to take basically all 
Federal funding away from our joint State of New York is a question his 
constituents are going to have to address in 2 months.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. 
Jayapal), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, here we are, wasting time again on the floor 
on a bill that has no chance of becoming law, when, meanwhile, 
Republicans have failed to pass a continuing resolution that would keep 
our government funded. Some in your party are even calling for a 
government shutdown, which would have detrimental effects on Americans 
across the country.
  Are we dealing with that issue? No. Republicans couldn't pass their 
own bill, a partisan bill, to continue to fund the government, and we 
are not trying to do anything on that. Instead, we are here talking not 
about a bill that actually works for real solutions for our outdated 
immigration system, but we are once again talking about a bill that 
demonizes immigrants.
  This is something that Republicans have refused to put forward, real 
solutions to our broken immigration system, because, in their own 
words, they want to keep immigration broken so that they can continue 
to demonize immigrants and continue to try to make this an election 
issue.
  Here we are today, once again, debating a bill inspired by Trump's 
Project 2025 that would strip billions of dollars in vital Federal 
funds from States and localities across the country, including in my 
home State of Washington.
  Under this bill, jurisdictions that want to keep the proper division 
between Federal enforcement and local law enforcement are penalized for 
doing just that, taking away any Federal funds that might ``benefit'' 
undocumented immigrants. That makes absolutely no sense on multiple 
levels.
  First of all, community trust policies in these jurisdictions foster 
cooperation and trust between immigrant communities and local 
authorities. That is crucial for effective policing and public safety.
  When immigrants feel safe reporting crimes and working with law 
enforcement, it actually strengthens public safety for everyone. That 
is why members of the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, which is 
made up of law enforcement officials from across the country, have 
expressed concern with this bill, stating that when local police are 
viewed as colluding with immigration authorities, ``undocumented 
residents may fear that they, or people they know or depend upon, risk 
deportation by working with law enforcement,'' and that ``this fear 
undermines trust between law enforcement and the communities we 
serve,'' which actually can facilitate an increase in violent crime.
  That is law enforcement talking about what this bill would actually 
do. It would hurt our ability to protect public safety.
  On top of that, local jurisdictions have neither the money, the 
training, nor the time to enforce Federal immigration laws, 
particularly when it undermines their own ability to build community 
trust and do their necessary work.

  H.R. 5717 is just bad policy. It implements Trump's extreme Project 
2025 agenda by stripping localities and States across the country of 
billions of dollars in Federal funding for education, transportation, 
infrastructure, law enforcement, and healthcare just because those 
funds might benefit undocumented immigrants, forgetting that they 
actually benefit everybody in the community.
  Let's remember that undocumented immigrants are interwoven into our 
communities. Approximately 1.1 million U.S. citizens are married to 
undocumented immigrants, and over 600,000 U.S. citizen children live in 
mixed-status households where at least one person is undocumented, not 
to mention the DACA recipients who work in public schools, hospitals, 
and small businesses.
  Attempts to punish cities and States for using funding in a way that 
benefits undocumented people take away the very necessary funding that 
communities across the country have been asking for, and it will 
inevitably also harm U.S. citizens and American communities in those 
same localities.
  Welcome to Donald Trump and Stephen Miller's America, where the 
Federal Government tries to coerce State and local governments to adopt 
the most anti-immigrant policies. If they refuse to do so, well, then 
that entire community is going to be stripped of Federal funding for 
the most essential services.
  We have recently seen how dangerous this rhetoric and this policy can 
be. For the past few weeks, Republicans have relentlessly pushed 
debunked myths about how Haitian immigrants have supposedly invaded 
Springfield, Ohio, and are eating people's pets.
  Sadly, that led to the city having to evacuate city hall and lock 
down multiple hospitals due to bomb threats. Parents are afraid to send 
their kids to school as Springfield elementary schools were evacuated 2 
days in a row because of the bomb threats.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Washington.

                              {time}  1700

  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, my Republican colleagues love to talk about 
so-called immigrant crime and chaos at the border, but the reality is 
that their callous disregard for the truth, for conspiracy theories and 
lies and demonization of immigrants, has brought crime and chaos to the 
residents of Springfield, Ohio, putting their well-being and security 
at risk.
  Mr. Chairman, we are better than this. America is better than this. 
We

[[Page H5501]]

can fix the immigration system without ripping communities apart and 
stripping away billions of dollars in vital Federal funding. We can 
solve the problems at the border without fear-mongering and 
scapegoating immigrants who are helping to build our communities across 
the country.
  Unfortunately, that would require bipartisanship, compromise, and a 
commitment to actually solving the problem, all of which my Republican 
colleagues have made clear they have zero interest in doing.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous bill.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, every grant the Federal Government makes 
to States and localities comes with conditions that they must fulfill 
in order to receive those funds. This measure simply says to get 
Federal funds, you must obey Federal law.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Molinaro).
  Mr. MOLINARO. Mr. Chair, I rise today not only to support this 
legislation, but let's also clarify for a moment: My colleague across 
the aisle suggested that it is time to get real. Law enforcement has 
been trusted in our communities to do their jobs and provide for public 
safety without Federal or State interference for years. Sanctuary city 
policies are actually handcuffing local law enforcement and precluding 
them from intervening in protecting American citizens. Sanctuary city 
policies keep local law enforcement from even being able to interact 
with Federal law enforcement, therefore making it impossible for them 
to do their jobs.
  My colleague across the aisle said it is time to get real. The 
overwhelming number of illegal immigrants being transported to cities 
and States like New York is not at the hands of Governors of States, 
but of the Federal Government. I know this because, as a county 
executive, I saw it firsthand. In fact, it was imposed on my community 
and my law enforcement.
  Since President Biden took office, over 11 million individuals have 
entered our country illegally. In the State of New York, because of 
sanctuary city policies, Governor Hochul and Mayor Adams have allowed 
for the transport of migrants--apparently, that is okay if Democratic 
mayors do it--to cities, communities, motels, and hotels throughout 
upstate New York.
  One of my colleagues referred to the so-called crime committed by 
illegal immigrants. We are not suggesting that everyone who comes to 
this country commits a crime, but we are suggesting that when we 
interface with an illegal immigrant who does, in fact, break the law, 
law enforcement should be able to do its job and interact with Federal 
officials and, ultimately, arrest and deport individuals who break the 
law.
  We know that this has occurred in our State. Just 1 month ago, a 
Peruvian serial killer wanted for 23 murders was arrested at the 
southern border, released based on the current administration's policy, 
and then transported to New York.
  I don't think Governor Abbott drove him there. Instead, it is likely 
the Federal Government and our tax dollars brought him to New York, 
where he was arrested, living in Endicott, New York.
  In another instance, an illegal immigrant raped and strangled a woman 
in Delaware County, New York. This individual committed a heinous act 
while out on bail for raping another woman, thanks to New York City's 
sanctuary city policy and cashless bail. This crime could have been 
prevented but was not.
  At what point does the State of New York recognize that this is a 
crisis of their own making? No one will lose a dollar if States like 
New York and cities like New York would abandon sanctuary city policies 
and allow local law enforcement to do their jobs.
  At times, I come here and it feels as if we are in some sort of 
version of the Wizard of Oz. Pay no attention to the crisis of our 
making. Look, over there--Project 2025. Pay no attention to the crimes 
being committed. Look, over there--an offensive tweet.
  To my colleagues, it is very simple: Law enforcement can do its job 
well, and we ought to demand accountability from States that preclude 
them from protecting American citizens.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, once again, I point out that what everyone 
thinks of the Biden administration's immigration policies, the only 
effect of this bill would be to take all Federal funds away from States 
like New York, California, North Dakota, Utah.
  Again, for Mr. Molinaro, who represents New York, he will have to 
explain to his constituents why he thinks all Federal funds should be 
taken away from New York.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Garcia), a new member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GARCIA of Illinois. Mr. Chair, today, I rise to express my 
profound concerns about the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act and its 
potential ramifications for cities like Chicago, which I proudly 
represent.
  As the Nation's first sanctuary city, Chicago is a shining example of 
what it means to be a melting pot of cultures, backgrounds, and 
experiences. We are committed to the principles of inclusion, safety, 
and justice for all its residents, regardless of immigration status.
  As a welcoming city and State, our policies are designed to build 
trust between our immigrant communities and local law enforcement, 
ensuring that everyone feels safe to report crimes and seek assistance 
without fear of deportation.
  The No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act threatens to undermine these 
efforts by withholding essential Federal funds from cities that uphold 
such priorities. The bill proposes to penalize cities like Chicago, 
counties like Cook County, and States like Illinois by cutting off 
essential resources that support public safety, community service, 
education, and transportation.

  Let me be clear: This legislation not only affects the bureaucratic 
operations of our city and State government, it would also deeply 
impact the daily lives of our own families and neighbors.
  Federal grants play a vital role in equipping emergency response 
services and our law enforcement with the resources that they need to 
keep our communities safe. This bill would cut these funds, 
compromising our ability to effectively protect our communities and 
maintain our public safety.
  Similarly, many of our community programs, which provide critical 
support to our most vulnerable populations, are also funded by Federal 
grants. Losing this funding will mean significantly reduced support for 
after-school programs, fewer resources for schools and healthcare 
services, and less assistance for families facing economic hardship. It 
would decimate the Federal dollars used to maintain and improve our 
city's transportation infrastructure, from roads to public 
transportation to clean water access.
  The Federal dollars threatened by this bill are essential for our 
economic growth and for the quality of life of all residents.
  The message of this bill is clear: If a city chooses to embrace the 
immigrant communities and prioritize their safety and well-being, it 
will be punished. This is not only unjust but counterproductive.
  Our Nation's strength lies in its diversity, and our cities' efforts 
to protect and support all residents should be applauded, not 
penalized.
  Let us reaffirm our commitment to values that unite us rather than 
divide us. Let us support policies that uplift all of our communities 
and ensure they have the resources they need to thrive.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Arrington), the chairman of the House Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Chair, if those cities want the hard-earned tax 
dollars of our citizens, they need to respect our laws, our 
sovereignty, and the safety of the American people.
  Mr. Chair, there are fewer things more despairing than having to pass 
laws to enforce laws because our chief law enforcement officer and 
Commander in Chief has fallen down on the job. If President Biden and 
Vice President Harris don't respect the laws of our land, I don't 
suspect other people will either.
  I rise in support of H.R. 5717, the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities 
Act.
  Sanctuary cities are magnets. They are part of the perverse 
incentives that are drawing illegal immigrants into

[[Page H5502]]

this country. In fact, their mere existence is illegal under U.S. law. 
Title 8, Section 1324 of the United States Code prohibits the harboring 
of illegal aliens, making such acts a felony punishable by imprisonment 
up to 5 years. Other sections in title 8 prohibit local jurisdictions 
from withholding the immigration status of an individual from Federal 
authorities.
  These rogue local officials who promote these policies and flout the 
rule of law are themselves acting as criminals, and they are a disgrace 
to our great country. They should be impeached or prosecuted.
  These jurisdictions are sanctuaries for lawlessness, crime, and chaos 
that is a cancer pervading our country.
  Sanctuary cities are a scourge to our country's law and order, to a 
civil society whose sacred duty is to provide for a common defense, 
promote domestic tranquility, and enforce the laws of the land.
  As John Adams once said, this is ``a government of laws, not of 
men,'' and when we depart from that central tenet of this Republic, we 
are diminished as a people and weaker as a nation.
  Mr. Chair, you get what you tolerate, and we have tolerated this 
recklessness for way too long. Sanctuary cities must be stopped. This 
legislation would prohibit Federal dollars from funding public services 
for illegal aliens in sanctuary cities.
  Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to do the right thing, uphold 
the rule of law, and protect the American people. I urge them to vote 
for H.R. 5717.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Bowman).
  Mr. BOWMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5717. This bill 
is a deeply absurd and completely transparent attempt to fearmonger and 
continue stoking hatred of immigrants in our communities.
  Let me be loud and clear: Immigrants make our communities stronger 
and more vibrant every single day, and Americans can see through these 
tactics.
  Instead of recognizing the beauty of our diverse communities and 
working to serve them, Republicans are putting forth a bill that would 
actually strip billions in Federal funding from their own communities 
and even from entire States, including my home State of New York.
  This bill is so broadly written that it could endanger Federal 
funding for school lunches, public schools, hospitals, public 
transportation, roads and bridges, police equipment, emergency 
response, and much more.
  These are the institutions that keep us safe, healthy, and able to 
thrive, but Republicans are throwing it all away for what? For hate, 
for fear-mongering, and for their own power. Our job in Congress is to 
serve our communities, not destroy them just to score cheap political 
points that are completely unfounded in reality.
  For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to 
recommit this bill back to committee.
  If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an 
important amendment to this bill. My amendment would restore 
desperately needed title I funding for our public schools. I am a 
lifelong educator. I was a teacher, counselor, and middle school 
principal before coming to Congress.
  I have watched as Republicans have tried to come for public schools. 
In the FY25 budget, they proposed to cut title I funding by 25 percent. 
In fact, Project 2025 wants to cut title I funding for schools 
completely. Think about what that would mean for our kids. That means 
180,000 teachers gone.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. BOWMAN. Funding that improves academic achievement, provides 
high-quality learning opportunities, enables extracurricular activities 
and co-curricular activities and supplemental services are all 
decimated.
  Schools are the backbone of our communities and the lifeblood of our 
democracy.
  Increasing title I means more quality educators, more school-based 
programs to nurture students, smaller class sizes, and better student 
outcomes.
  So my amendment would do just that. That is because it is far past 
time that we prioritize our kids, and our communities deserve a bill 
take actually meet their needs, not one that completely abandons them.
  Mr. Chair, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion 
to recommit.
  I include in the Record the text of this amendment.

       Mr. Bowman of New York moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5717 
     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 of the bill the following:

     SEC. 4. APPROPRIATION.

       In addition to amounts otherwise available, there is 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Education for fiscal year 
     2025, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
     appropriated, $4,716,578,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2026, for carrying out title I of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (referred to 
     in this Act as ``ESEA''): Provided, That $2,358,289,000 shall 
     be for targeted grants under section 1125 of the ESEA: 
     Provided further, That $2,358,289,000 shall be for education 
     finance incentive grants under section 1125A of the ESEA.

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am ready to close, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Chairman, as we get closer to the end of our fiscal year with no 
resolution in sight, we are wasting our time with these absurd bills.
  I know that Members of this Chamber have very mixed feelings about 
appropriations bills and the earmarks that go along with them, but only 
in this backwards Congress would Members think that stripping their 
constituents of Federal funding is good policy.
  This legislation, which offers no solutions and would serve only to 
punish our communities, is opposed by law enforcement, organized labor, 
and civil and immigrant rights organizations.
  Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to oppose it, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Last week, the House Judiciary Committee received chilling testimony 
from Sheriff Mike Boudreaux of the rural Central Valley county of 
Tulare, California. What he told us should be an earsplitting alarm for 
every town and every city in America.
  In the sanctuary State of California, the criminal cartels have sunk 
deep roots throughout the State. In his county alone, a single assassin 
for the Sinaloa cartel admitted to over 25 murders. The sheriff said:

       That he was responsible for a certain area of California 
     and there were many other assassins assigned by cartels in 
     California, throughout California, that were responsible for 
     those areas.

  Then he spoke to California's sanctuary State law. He told of a reign 
of terror committed by an illegal migrant over a 24-hour period in his 
county: a murder in Visalia, attempted murders an Exeter and Tulare, as 
well as shootings in Pixley, Sultana, and Visalia and an armed robbery 
in Exeter.
  Here is the fine point of the matter: 2 days before this nightmare 
unfolded, this monster had been arrested, and ICE had requested a 
detainer so that they could deport him.
  As Sheriff Boudreaux testified again:

       Due to California's sanctuary State law, the Sheriff's 
     Office was legally prohibited from recognizing or honoring 
     the detainer of this would-be murderer and we were further 
     prohibited from notifying ICE of his release from jail.

  This is the dystopian world the Democrats have created in California 
with their sanctuary law which was supported at the time by then-State 
Attorney General Kamala Harris.
  As Sheriff Boudreaux told us:

       Much of what I speak of in regard to California and the 
     violence, as well as the human trafficking, it is mirrored in 
     other States all throughout the United States. The cartel 
     wants to control these migrant towns and truly lead the same 
     way that they are in other countries, specifically in Mexico.

  He estimated that well over 50 percent of the crimes that he is 
dealing with in his county are now being committed by illegal 
immigrants, but since he can't report or confirm these numbers, the 
official number is zero.
  I might add that the NYPD estimates that 75 percent of the crimes 
that they are now dealing with in Manhattan are committed by illegal 
migrants.

[[Page H5503]]

  If it has not come to your neighborhood yet, Mr. Chairman, it soon 
will if we continue down the path that we are on.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people have precious little time to awaken 
and stop this insanity before it engulfs their towns, neighborhoods, 
and communities if it hasn't already. In the meantime, measures like 
this will assure that policies like this never again are allowed to 
threaten our families.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The bill is considered as read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5717

       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 ``No Bailout for Sanctuary 
     Cities Act''.

     SEC. 2. SANCTUARY JURISDICTION DEFINED.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided under subsection (b), 
     for purposes of this Act, the term ``sanctuary jurisdiction'' 
     means any State or political subdivision of a State that has 
     in effect a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice that 
     prohibits or restricts any government entity or official 
     from--
       (1) sending, receiving, maintaining, or exchanging with any 
     Federal, State, or local government entity information 
     regarding the citizenship or immigration status (lawful or 
     unlawful) of any individual; or
       (2) complying with a request lawfully made by the 
     Department of Homeland Security under section 236 or 287 of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226 and 1357) 
     to comply with a detainer for, or notify about the release 
     of, an individual.
       (b) Exception.--A State or political subdivision of a State 
     shall not be deemed a sanctuary jurisdiction based solely on 
     its having a policy whereby its officials will not share 
     information regarding, or comply with a request made by the 
     Department of Homeland Security under section 236 or 287 of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226 and 1357) 
     to comply with a detainer regarding, an individual who comes 
     forward as a victim or a witness to a criminal offense.

     SEC. 3. SANCTUARY JURISDICTIONS INELIGIBLE FOR CERTAIN 
                   FEDERAL FUNDS.

       Beginning in the fiscal year that begins after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, a sanctuary jurisdiction is ineligible 
     to receive any Federal funds that the sanctuary jurisdiction 
     intends to use for the benefit (including the provision of 
     food, shelter, healthcare services, legal services, and 
     transportation) of aliens who are present in the United 
     States without lawful status under the immigration laws (as 
     such terms are defined in section 101 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act).

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those 
printed in part C of House Report 118-685.
  Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, 
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Ogles

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part C of House Report 118-685.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, beginning on line 3, strike ``Beginning'' and all 
     that follows through ``Act'' on line 4, and insert the 
     following: ``Beginning on the earlier of the date that is 60 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act or the first day 
     of the fiscal year that begins after the date of enactment of 
     this Act''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1455, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, there are nearly 300 sanctuary jurisdictions in 
the United States. That is 300 places in our Nation that refuse to 
cooperate with Federal law enforcement to detain and remove illegal 
aliens. That is why this underlying bill is so important.
  There is not a single so-called sanctuary jurisdiction locality that 
intentionally refuses to uphold the law who should be receiving Federal 
funds. Every city, county, or State that has laws, regulations, 
resolutions, or policies protecting illegal alien criminals from ICE 
should not receive a penny of Federal funding for the benefits of those 
illegal aliens.
  Unfortunately, these jurisdictions received over $300 million from 
the Department of Justice in 2021 alone.
  My concern with this legislation, and it is a fairly minor one, is 
the timeline. Right now, the bill says that there will be a complete 
funding prohibition on food, shelter, healthcare, and other services 
for illegal aliens in sanctuary jurisdictions, but the funding 
ineligibility kicks in at the beginning of the fiscal year after the 
date of an enactment.
  Practically, that could raise a circumstance in which the funding 
prohibition described in this bill wouldn't kick in until nearly a year 
after this bill becomes law.
  In my view, that is too long. It is too long of a timeframe for these 
sanctuary cities, these jurisdictions, to get away with violating our 
laws and taking tax dollars from hardworking Americans.
  This amendment amends section 3 of the text to ensure that the 
funding ineligibility for these jurisdictions become effective no later 
than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this act and 
potentially even sooner.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes a bad bill even worse. 
The underlying legislation is already dangerous and overly broad. It 
would prevent so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, in some cases entire 
States, from receiving any Federal funds that might benefit 
undocumented immigrants, resulting in drastic cuts to education, 
transportation, law enforcement, and healthcare.
  To make matters worse, this amendment would force this bill into 
effect within 60 days of passage. So even if States and localities 
wanted to change their policies to comply with this bill, they likely 
would not be able to do so in time.
  Many State legislatures are only in session for parts of the year. 
The legislature for my State of New York, for example, is only in 
session 6 months out of the year and does not convene again until 
January 2025.
  There has been no consultation with the relevant agencies to 
determine if this short timeline is feasible, not only to determine 
every sanctuary jurisdiction, but also what funds and programs are 
impacted.
  This amendment makes this dangerous bill even more absurd.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, these jurisdictions are aiding and abetting 
criminals. They are ignoring and violating Federal law. They created 
this problem, so if they have to call a special session to fix the 
problem they created, that is on them. It shouldn't be the taxpayers of 
Tennessee who have to fund it.
  I have got veterans in my community that aren't getting services 
because of illegal immigrants. There are only so many dollars to go 
around. Tennessee spends roughly $850 million a year annually for 
illegal immigrants. That is textbooks, that is computers for our kids, 
that is psychological evaluations and treatment for our veterans. If I 
have to choose between a citizen and an illegal who is violating our 
laws, I choose an American every single time.
  Mr. Chairman, if Soros-funded sanctuary jurisdictions want to violate 
the law and turn their backs on America, on our citizens, and on law 
enforcement personnel, they should not be financially rewarded for 
doing so. There is no good argument my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle can make that involves asking my constituents, hardworking 
Americans in middle Tennessee, to subsidize the lives of lawbreakers as 
well as the decisions of sanctuary jurisdictions who want to protect 
those lawbreakers.
  It is time to defund and to deport. This is our country. We get to 
decide who comes in, and we get to decide who has to leave.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H5504]]

  

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, again, this bill would take funds away not 
from illegal immigrants only; it would take funds away from everybody 
in many States and many cities. It would take virtually all funds for 
police; virtually all funds for highways, bridges, and roads; and 
virtually all funds for health and hospitals.
  Most of the people who would suffer under this bill are American 
citizens.
  The Republicans say: So what? They have made the choice to be a 
sanctuary space.
  American citizens have this choice. They have the right to make 
decisions. That is what self-government is all about, and this bill 
comes along and says, let's take away the right of all of the people of 
New York, of California, of Utah, of North Dakota, and of Illinois to 
make decisions about their government. They are not really Americans. 
Let's take those rights away.
  It is pernicious, and this amendment would say: Don't even give them 
the time to do it, and don't even give the Federal agencies the time to 
adjust their policies to do it.

  This makes no sense.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, the crazy conjecture of the consequences is 
clearly confounding.
  Let's be honest. We are talking about the food, the shelter, and the 
healthcare that is going directly to illegal immigrants, nothing to 
American citizens. Keep in mind, it is the jurisdictions who created 
this problem. It is the jurisdictions that are violating our laws and 
making a mockery of our system and turning their backs on law 
enforcement.
  Mr. Chair, you have girls and women all across the country who have 
been sexually assaulted by illegals. These are crimes that would never 
have happened if they were back in their home country if they had never 
been allowed in this country, if they had not been given sanctuary, had 
they not been released.
  So when the gentleman talks about consequences, why doesn't he ask 
those women and those children?
  Why doesn't the gentleman ask those families?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to get into a debate over 
the Biden administration's immigration policy. That is a separate 
debate that is happening.
  The fact of the matter is that this bill would take virtually all 
Federal funds away from many States and many cities in this country.
  A sanctuary jurisdiction is ineligible to receive any Federal funds 
that the sanctuary jurisdiction intends to use for the benefit, 
including the provision of food, shelter, healthcare services, legal 
services, and transportation of aliens who are present in the United 
States without lawful status.
  Aliens present in the United States without lawful status use our 
roads and highways, so no road and highway money for all the people who 
are born who are here. Aliens who are here go to schools, so no funding 
for education. Aliens who are here go to hospitals when they are sick, 
so no funding for healthcare.
  This makes no sense. This bill would take large amounts of money and 
virtually all Federal funds in fact away from many States in the Union.
  Mr. Ogles says it would leave more money for Tennessee. I don't know 
whether that is true or not, but it would take virtually all Federal 
funds away from most States, and frankly as a Representative from New 
York which would lose all Federal funds, I wouldn't vote for a nickel 
for Tennessee in that case. That is because all Americans, whether in 
Tennessee or New York or Pennsylvania or Illinois, should be treated 
equally and not sacrificed on the altar of someone's opinion of 
immigration policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1730

  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Ogles

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part A of House Report 118-685.
  Mr. Ogles. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add, at the end of the bill, the following:

     SEC. 4. REPORT ON NONCOMPLIANCE.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the Senate a report that includes a list of 
     States, and political subdivisions of States, that have 
     failed to comply with requests described in section 2(a)(2).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1455, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, what this does is asks Homeland Security to 
produce a report. So-called sanctuary jurisdictions choose to undermine 
Federal law enforcement when it attempts to enforce our immigration 
laws. I am grateful we are considering the underlying bill to hold them 
accountable. I thank the chairman.
  One policy that would make a city a sanctuary city is a prohibition 
or a restriction on government entities or officials from complying 
with lawful requests from the Department of Homeland Security under 
section 236 or 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
  My modest amendment just asks that DHS provide an annual report to 
Congress detailing which jurisdictions have failed to honor such lawful 
requests. I believe having that information and having the report is 
important. Without it, it could be difficult to know which 
jurisdictions are complying with the law.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New York is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment requires the Department of Homeland 
Security to provide an annual report to the House and Senate Judiciary 
Committees listing all the jurisdictions that failed to comply with a 
detainer request or inform the Department about the release of an 
individual. It is important for us to take a step back and remember 
what this bill is about. This bill is intending to strip Federal 
funding from jurisdictions that have ``sanctuary'' policies.
  I think a report like this would be quite illuminating for Members 
across the aisle because it would show Republicans just how many of 
their own constituents are being harmed with their own legislation.
  Communities in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, 
North Carolina, just to name a few, would lose out on funding for 
central services, like public schools, infrastructure, and policing.
  Yes, I think this report would help show exactly how damaging this 
legislation is, and, therefore, I do not oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for supporting my amendment.
  As we look at the jurisdictions across the country that may be 
ignoring current Federal law, whether by ordinance, whether by order of 
the mayor, by statute, or just an unwritten rule, this report would 
illuminate and bring to light those jurisdictions that, quite frankly, 
are putting America at risk.
  A border crisis is a disaster for the country. It has turned every 
State into a border State. It spurred drug trafficking, human 
trafficking, and other crime. There was just a bodega that was shut 
down that was trafficking illegals today.
  It has caused resource crises for cities and towns across the country 
who have found that they don't have the resources to deal with the 
influx, the mass influx, of people the Biden-Harris administration has 
released upon them.

[[Page H5505]]

  Again, this information is critical as we move forward, as we look 
for solutions and put an end to this crisis that is plaguing our 
country.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, in closing, again, it is a simple report. It is valuable 
information. It is time that all cities, all communities enforce the 
Federal law. It is time to deport the illegals who are draining our 
system, taking money away from American citizens.
  Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Moran). There being no further amendments, 
under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Cloud) having assumed the chair, Mr. Moran, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5717) to 
provide that sanctuary jurisdictions that provide benefits to aliens 
who are present in the United States without lawful status under the 
immigration laws are ineligible for Federal funds intended to benefit 
such aliens, and, pursuant to House Resolution 1455, he reported the 
bill, as amended by that resolution, back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the 
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. BOWMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Bowman of New York moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5717 
     to the Committee on the Judiciary.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  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. BOWMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________