[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16090-16096]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  STOP SANCTUARY POLICIES AND PROTECT AMERICANS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2146, which the 
clerk shall now report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 252, S. 2146, a bill to 
     hold sanctuary jurisdictions accountable for defying Federal 
     law, to increase penalties for individuals who illegally 
     reenter the United States after being removed, and to provide 
     liability protection for State and local law enforcement who 
     cooperate with Federal law enforcement and for other 
     purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, the American people have demanded for years 
that the Federal Government faithfully enforce our Nation's immigration 
laws. Americans are tired of seeing their laws flouted and their 
communities plagued by the horrible crimes that typically accompany 
illegal immigration. But for too long, the pleas of the

[[Page 16091]]

American people on this issue have gone unheeded here in Washington.
  See, when it comes to the problem of illegal immigration, the 
political class and the business class--our Nation's elites--are of one 
mind. They promise robust enforcement at some point in the future but 
only on the condition that the American people accept a pathway to 
citizenship now for the millions of illegal immigrants who are already 
in this country.
  Not wanting to be swindled, the American people wisely rejected this 
deal, which the Washington class calls ``comprehensive immigration 
reform.'' Of course, the elites don't like this one bit. So instead, 
they have taken matters into their own hands. They bend or ignore the 
law to make it more difficult for immigration enforcement officers to 
do their job.
  We have seen this repeatedly with the Obama administration. President 
Obama has illegally granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants 
with no statutory authorization whatsoever, even though, before his 
reelection, the President assured the American people he couldn't do so 
without an act of Congress. As President Obama said, when asked whether 
he could grant amnesty, ``I am not an emperor.''
  Well, I agree with President Obama. But yet, just a few months after 
saying he couldn't do this because he was not an emperor, apparently he 
discovered he was an emperor, because he did precisely what he 
acknowledged he lacked the constitutional authority to do.
  Although the administration today claims to be focusing its resources 
on deporting illegal immigrants with criminal records, it has adopted a 
policy where many illegal immigrants that the administration deems to 
be low-priority criminals will not be detained and deported but will be 
released back into our communities.
  Remarkably, in the year 2013 the Obama administration released from 
detention roughly 36,000 convicted criminal aliens who were actually 
awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings. These criminal aliens 
were responsible for 193 homicide convictions. They were responsible 
for 426 sexual assault convictions, 303 kidnapping convictions, 1,075 
aggravated assault convictions, and 16,070 drunk driving convictions. 
All of this was on top of the additional 68,000 illegal immigrants with 
criminal convictions that the Federal Government encountered in 2013 
but never took into custody for deportation. Dwell on those numbers for 
a moment.
  In 1 year, the Obama administration releases over 104,000 criminal 
illegal aliens, people who have come into this country illegally who 
have additional criminal convictions--murderers, rapists, thieves, 
drunk drivers.
  One wonders what the administration says to the mother of a child 
lost to a murderer released by the Obama administration because they 
will not enforce the laws. One wonders what the Obama administration 
says to the child of a man killed by a drunk driver released by the 
Obama administration because they will not enforce our immigration 
laws.
  While this administration's refusal to enforce the laws is bad 
enough, the scandalously poor enforcement of our immigration laws is 
made much, much worse by the lawless actions of the roughly 340 so-
called sanctuary jurisdictions across the country. Although these 
jurisdictions are more than happy--eager, even--to take Federal 
taxpayer dollars, they go out of their way to obstruct and impede 
Federal immigration enforcement by adopting policies that prohibit 
their law enforcement officers from cooperating with Federal officers. 
Some of the jurisdictions even refuse to honor requests from the 
Federal Government to temporarily hold a criminal alien until Federal 
officers can take custody of the individual. Not only are these 
sanctuary policies an affront to the rule of law, but they are 
extremely dangerous.
  According to a recent study by the Center for Immigration Studies, 
between January 1 and September 30, 2014--just a 9-month period--
sanctuary jurisdictions released 9,295 alien offenders who the Federal 
Government was seeking to deport. That is roughly 1,000 offenders a 
month that sanctuary jurisdictions released to the people. Now, of 
those 9,295, 62 percent had prior criminal histories or other public 
safety issues. Amazingly, to underscore just how dangerous this is to 
the citizenry, 2,320 of those criminal offenders were rearrested within 
the 9-month period for committing new crimes after they had already 
been released by the sanctuary jurisdiction. If that doesn't embody 
lawlessness, it is difficult to imagine what does--jurisdictions that 
are releasing over and over criminal illegal aliens, many of them 
violent criminal illegal aliens, and exposing the citizens who live at 
home to additional public safety risk, to additional terrorist risk.
  This same study found that the Federal Government was unable to 
reapprehend the vast majority of the alien offenders released by the 
sanctuary jurisdictions--69 percent as of last year. Even Homeland 
Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has admitted that these sanctuary 
policies are ``unacceptable.'' ``It is counterproductive to public 
safety,'' he said, ``to have this level of resistance to working with 
our immigration enforcement personnel.''
  I am thrilled to hear the Secretary of Homeland Security say so out 
loud. I assume that means that the Obama administration will be 
supporting the legislation before this body. After all, the Secretary 
of Homeland Security says it is ``unacceptable,'' and that ``it is 
counterproductive to public safety.'' Yet, sadly, the Obama 
administration is not supporting the legislation before this body.
  Indeed, it has taken the tragic and terrible death of Kate Steinle to 
galvanize action here in Washington. Kate died in the arms of her 
father on a San Francisco pier after being fatally shot by an illegal 
alien who had several felony convictions and had been deported from the 
United States multiple times. Her death is heartbreaking.
  In the Senate Judiciary Committee we had the opportunity to hear from 
Kate Steinle's family. The heartbreak is even more appalling because 
Kate's killer had been released from custody and not turned over to the 
Federal Government to be deported because of San Francisco's sanctuary 
policy.
  The city of San Francisco is proudly a sanctuary city. They say to 
illegal immigrants across the country and across the world: Come to San 
Francisco. We will protect you from Federal immigration laws. We, the 
elected democratic leaders of this city, welcome illegal immigrants, 
including violent criminal illegal immigrants such as the murderer who 
took Kate Steinle's life.
  These policies are inexcusable. They are a threat to the public 
safety of the American people, and they need to end. That is why I am 
proud to be one of the original cosponsors of the Stop Sanctuary 
Policies and Protect Americans Act, which strips certain Federal funds, 
especially community development block grants, from jurisdictions that 
maintain these lawless policies. If these jurisdictions insist on 
making it more difficult to remove criminal aliens from our 
communities, then these Federal dollars should go instead to 
jurisdictions that will actually cooperate with the Federal Government, 
that are willing to enforce the law rather than aid and abet the 
criminals. It makes no sense to continue sending Federal money to local 
governments that intentionally make it more difficult and costly for 
the Federal Government to do its job.
  But this bill doesn't just address sanctuary jurisdictions. It also 
addresses the problem of illegal immigrants who, like Kate Steinle's 
killer, are deported but illegally reenter the country, which is a 
felony. This class of illegal aliens has a special disregard and 
disdain for our Nation's laws, and too often these offenders also have 
serious rap sheets.
  In 2012, just over a quarter of the illegal aliens apprehended by 
Border Patrol had prior deportation orders. That is an astounding 
99,420 illegal aliens. Of the illegal reentry offenders who were 
actually prosecuted in fiscal year 2014--that is just 16,556 
offenders--a fraction of those committed a felony. The majority of 
those who were prosecuted had extensive or recent criminal histories, 
and many were dangerous

[[Page 16092]]

criminals. Even though the majority of offenders had serious criminal 
records, the average prison sentence was just 17 months, down from an 
average of 22 months in 2008.
  In fact, more than a quarter of illegal reentry offenders received a 
sentence below the guidelines range because the government sponsored 
the low sentence. Because we are failing to adequately deter illegal 
aliens who have already been deported from illegally reentering the 
country, I introduced Kate's Law in the Senate.
  I wish to thank Senators Vitter and Grassley for working with me to 
incorporate elements of Kate's Law into this bill. I also wish to 
recognize and thank all of the original cosponsors who joined me in 
this bill--Senators Barrasso, Cornyn, Isakson, Johnson, Perdue, Rubio, 
Sullivan, and Toomey.
  Because of this bill, any illegal alien who illegally reenters the 
United States and has a prior aggravated felony conviction or two prior 
illegal reentry convictions will face a mandatory sentence of 5 years 
in prison. We must send the message that defiance of our laws will no 
longer be tolerated, whether it is by the sanctuary cities themselves 
or by the illegal reentry offenders who they harbor.
  The problem of illegal immigration in this country will never be 
solved until we demonstrate to the American people that we are serious 
about securing the border and enforcing our immigration laws and until 
we have a President who is willing to and, in fact, committed to 
actually enforcing the laws and securing the borders.
  This bill is just a small step, but at least it is a step in the 
right direction. Yet there will be two consequences from the vote this 
afternoon. First, it will be an opportunity for our friends on the 
Democratic side of the aisle to declare to the country on whose side 
they stand.
  When they are campaigning for reelection, more than a few Democratic 
Senators tell the voters they support securing the borders. More than a 
few Democratic Senators tell the voters: Of course we shouldn't be 
releasing criminal illegal aliens. More than a few Democratic Senators 
claim to have no responsibility for the 104,000 criminal illegal aliens 
released by the Obama administration in the year 2013.
  These Senators claim to have no responsibility for the murder of Kate 
Steinle, invited to San Francisco by that city's sanctuary city policy. 
This vote today will be a moment of clarity. No Democratic Senator will 
be able to go and tell his or her constituents: I oppose sanctuary 
cities. I support securing the border if they vote today in favor of 
sending Federal taxpayer funds to subsidize the lawlessness of 
sanctuary cities.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from families who had 
lost loved ones to violent criminal illegal aliens--one after the other 
after the other. We heard about children who were sexually abused and 
murdered by violent illegal aliens. We heard from family members who 
have lost loved ones to drunk drivers illegally in this country.
  During the hearing, I asked the senior Obama administration official 
for immigration enforcement how she could look into the eyes of those 
family members and justify releasing murderers, rapists, and drunk 
drivers over and over and over again.
  Indeed, at that hearing I asked the head of immigration enforcement 
for the Obama administration: How many murderers did the Obama 
administration release this week? Her answer: I don't know. I asked 
her: How many rapists did the Obama administration release this week? 
Her answer: I don't know. How many drunk drivers? I don't know.
  None of us should be satisfied with that answer or with a President 
and administration that refuse to enforce the laws and are willfully 
and repeatedly releasing violent criminal illegal aliens into our 
communities and endangering the lives of our families and children.
  This vote today is a simple decision for every Democratic Senator: 
With whom do you stand? Do you stand with the violent criminal illegal 
aliens who are being released over and over again? Because mind you, a 
vote no is to say the next time the next murderer--like Kate Steinle's 
murderer--comes in, we should not enforce the laws, and we shouldn't 
have a mandatory 5-year prison sentence. Instead, we should continue 
sanctuary cities that welcome and embrace him until perhaps it is our 
family members who lose their lives.
  It is my hope that in this moment of clarity the Democratic members 
of this body will decide they stand with the American people and not 
with the violent criminal illegal aliens.
  It is worth noting, by the way, the standard rhetorical device that 
so many Democratic Senators use is to say: Well, not all immigrants are 
criminals. Well, of course they are not. I am the son of an immigrant 
who came legally to this country 58 years ago. We are a nation of 
immigrants, of men and women fleeing oppression and seeking freedom, 
but this bill doesn't deal with all immigrants. It deals with one 
specific subset of immigrants: criminal illegal aliens. It deals with 
those who come to this country illegally and also have additional 
criminal convictions, whether it is homicide, sexual assault, 
kidnapping, battery, or drunk driving. If it is the Democrats' position 
for partisan reasons that they would rather stand with violent criminal 
illegal aliens, that is a sad testament on where one of the two major 
political parties in this country stands today. I suspect the voters 
who elect them would be more than a little surprised at how that jibes 
with the rhetoric they use on the campaign trail.
  If, as many observers predict, Democratic Senators choose to value 
partisan loyalty to the Obama White House over protecting the lives of 
the children who will be murdered by violent criminal illegal aliens in 
sanctuary cities if this body does not act, and if they vote on a 
party-line vote, as many observers have predicted, that will provide a 
moment of clarity. I will also suggest that it underscores the need for 
Republican leadership to bring this issue up again--and not in the 
context where Democrats can blithely block it and obstruct any 
meaningful reforms to protect our safety, secure the border, enforce 
the law, and stop violent illegal criminal aliens from threatening our 
safety--in the context of a must-pass bill and attach it to legislation 
that will actually pass in law.
  I am very glad we are voting on this bill this week. That is a good 
and positive step. It is one of the few things in the last 10 months we 
have voted on that actually responds to the concerns of the men and 
women who elected us.
  I salute leadership for bringing up this vote, but if a party-line 
vote blocks it, then the next step is not simply to have a vote. The 
next step is to attach this legislation to must-pass legislation and to 
actually fix the problem. Leadership loves to speak of what they call 
governing, and in Washington governing is always set at least an octave 
lower. Well, when it comes to stopping sanctuary cities and protecting 
our safety, we need some governing. We need to actually fix the problem 
rather than have a show vote.
  My first entreaty is to my Democratic friends across the aisle. 
Regardless of areas where we differ on partisan politics, this should 
be an easy vote. Do you stand with the men and women of your State or 
do you stand with violent criminal illegal aliens? We will find out in 
just a couple of hours.
  My second entreaty is to Republican leadership. If Democrats are 
partisans first rather than protecting the men and women they 
represent, then it is up to Republican leadership to attach this to a 
must-pass bill and actually pass it into law and solve the problem--not 
to talk about it, but to do it. It is my hope that is what all of us do 
together.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to speak out against a bill 
that is misguided, stands against everything that America represents, 
and suggests that it will protect Americans when, in fact, it will 
protect Americans less.
  From our founding, our principles have been guided by core values of 
equality, fairness, freedom, and tolerance, and in turn, we have 
honored the

[[Page 16093]]

many ways that immigrants have contributed to this country since its 
inception. Yet the other side of the aisle is once again engaged in a 
stubborn, relentless, and shameful assault against immigrants.
  As the son of immigrants myself, I find it hard not to take offense 
at the anti-immigrant rhetoric we are hearing from their Presidential 
candidates. It is unacceptable, deplorable, and should be renounced by 
every American. We are witnessing the most overtly nativist, xenophobic 
campaign in modern U.S. history. We have hit a new low with the 
extraordinarily hateful rhetoric that diminishes immigrants' 
contributions to American history and particularly demonizes the Latino 
community by labeling Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals.
  The Republican leading in the polls actually launched his 
Presidential candidacy by attacking immigrants, saying:

       They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're 
     rapists.

  Please spare me. It is senseless and false. Yet some of my Senate 
colleagues have decided to jump on the GOP's fearmongering bandwagon, 
seeking to blindly stamp millions of hard-working, law-abiding 
immigrant families as criminals and rapists, and that is why we are 
here today. That anti-immigrant rhetoric has made its way to the Senate 
floor courtesy of Donald Trump and some Republicans eager to capitalize 
on this rhetoric for their own political gain.
  This is nothing more than another offensive anti-immigrant bill, 
another effort to demonize those who risk everything for a better life 
for themselves and their children, those who were left with no choice 
but to flee persecution and violence or else face a certain death. That 
is what we are debating here today. Those are the individuals this 
legislation seeks to brand as criminals.
  This bill does nothing more than instigate fear and divide our 
Nation. Supporters of this bill may say that it is in response to a 
tragedy such as what happened in San Francisco, and what happened in 
San Francisco was a tragedy. Such tragedies will not be prevented by 
this legislation but by real immigration reform. I am happy to have 
that debate--a real debate, an honest and compassionate debate, a 
debate the country deserves--but that is not what is happening in this 
bill.
  The title of the bill asserts that it will protect Americans. Well, 
to be clear, this bill will not protect Americans because it second 
guesses decisions made by local law enforcement around the country 
about how to best police their own communities and ensure public 
safety.
  What is worse, this bill mandates local law enforcement to take on 
Federal immigration enforcement duties by threatening to strip away 
funding from as many as 300 local jurisdictions, from programs such as 
the community development block grant, community-oriented policing 
services, and the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. These are 
programs that directly help our towns and communities. The CDBG Program 
grows local economies and improves the quality of life for families. It 
has assisted hundreds of millions of people with low and moderate 
incomes, stabilized neighborhoods, provided affordable housing, and 
improved the safety and quality of life of American citizens. The Cops 
on the Beat grant funds salaries and benefits for police officers who 
serve us every day by keeping our communities safe, and they deserve 
better than being dragged into partisan politics.
  My colleague from Louisiana seeks to strip funding from localities 
that undertake the balancing of public safety considerations and refuse 
to act as Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. But this bill 
goes even further than that. This bill isn't content with taking 
discretion away from local communities; it takes it away from the 
judicial branch. It adds new mandatory minimums when, as a nation, we 
are trying to move away from that approach. The new mandatory minimum 
sentences would have a crippling financial impact with no evidence that 
they would actually deter future violations of the law. They could cost 
American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. I think that 
deserves a serious, thoughtful debate in the Judiciary Committee, with 
expert testimony on whether this really makes us safer or whether we 
are throwing away hard-earned taxpayer dollars. But we won't even get 
that debate because this bill was fast-tracked as a Republican 
priority, and it didn't even go through the regular committee process.
  The U.S. Senate cannot nurture an environment that demonizes and 
dehumanizes Latinos and the entire immigrant community. By threatening 
to strip CDBG funding from cities, Senate Republicans are saying that 
it is OK to withhold funding from economically vulnerable American 
citizens, senior citizens, veterans, and children to promote their 
anti-immigrant agenda and that it is OK to cut COPS funding, which has 
long promoted public safety through community policing.
  A one-size-fits-all approach that punishes State and local law 
enforcement agencies that engage in well-established community policing 
practices just doesn't make sense. Local communities and local law 
enforcement are better judges than Congress of what keeps their 
communities safe. Police need cooperation from the community to do 
their jobs. That is why over the past several years hundreds of 
localities across our Nation, with the support of some of the toughest 
police chiefs and sheriffs, have limited their involvement in Federal 
immigration enforcement out of concerns for community safety and 
violations of the Fourth Amendment. They need witnesses and victims to 
be able to come forward without fear of recrimination because of their 
immigrant status, and fear of deportation should never be a barrier to 
reporting crime or seeking help from the police. This fear undermines 
trust between law enforcement and the communities they protect and 
creates a chilling effect.
  These policies were put in place because local jurisdictions don't 
want to do ICE's job for them. Effective policing cannot be achieved by 
forcing an unwanted role upon the police by threat of sanctions or 
withholding assistance, especially at a time when law enforcement 
agencies are strengthening police-community relations.
  Furthermore, why do my Republican colleagues believe they know better 
than the local towns and citizens who live this day in and day out? 
They talk endlessly about decentralizing government, giving the power 
back to local communities, but not this time. It is no wonder that this 
bill is opposed by law enforcement, including the Fraternal Order of 
Police, the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, the U.S. Conference 
of Mayors, immigrant and Latino rights organizations, faith groups, and 
domestic violence groups, among others.
  This bill is not a real solution to our broken immigration system. 
The bottom line is that we need comprehensive immigration reform. We 
passed bipartisan legislation in 2013, but we haven't had a real 
discussion in Congress for over 2 years.
  A recent Pew poll found that 74 percent of Americans overall said 
that undocumented immigrants should be given a pathway to stay legally. 
That included 66 percent of Republicans, 74 percent of Independents, 
and 80 percent of Democrats who support a pathway to legal status for 
undocumented immigrants. This bipartisan support is not new.
  Comprehensive immigration reform, previously passed in the Senate, 
brought millions of people out of the shadows who had to prove their 
identity, pass a criminal background check, pay taxes, and provide an 
earned path to citizenship so ICE could focus on the people who were 
true public safety threats. The bill also increased penalties for 
repeat border crossers. It included $46 billion in new resources, 
including no fewer than 38,000 trained, full-time, active Border Patrol 
agents deployed and stationed along the southern border. It increased 
the real GDP of our country by more than 3 percent in 2023 and 5.4 
percent in 2033--an increase of roughly $700 billion in the first 10 
years and $1.4 trillion in the second 10. It would have reduced

[[Page 16094]]

the Federal deficit by $197 billion over the next decade and by another 
$700 billion in the following. That is almost $1 trillion in deficit 
spending reductions by giving 11 million people a pathway to 
citizenship. That was a real solution. That is the type of reform we 
need. That, in fact, is the opportunity that existed. Unfortunately, 
the other body, the House of Representatives, did not even have a vote. 
To the extent that Americans are less safe, it is because of their 
inaction that we are less safe today.
  Tragedies should not be used to scapegoat immigrants. They should not 
be used to erode trust between law enforcement and our communities. We 
cannot let fear drive our policymaking.
  So let's actively and collectively resist the demagoguery that 
threatens to shape American policymaking for the worse. I believe a 
vote to proceed is a vote against the Latino and immigrant communities 
of our country, and I hope that on a bipartisan basis we can reject it.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to discuss sanctuary cities.
  Two women, Kate Steinle and Marilyn Pharis, were killed in California 
over the summer, both allegedly by undocumented individuals with 
criminal records.
  The suspect in each case had recently been released from local 
custody without notice to Federal immigration officials, which could 
have resulted in those individuals being removed from the country 
instead of being released.
  I believe these murders could have been prevented if there were open 
channels of communication between local law enforcement and Federal 
immigration authorities about dangerous individuals.
  In both cases, those lines of communication broke down, and two women 
died.
  In my view, local law enforcement agencies should be required to 
notify Federal authorities--if such notification is requested--that 
they plan to release a dangerous individual, such as a convicted felon.
  This is a reasonable solution that would target those criminals who 
shouldn't be released back onto the street.
  While I do support mandatory communication between local, State, and 
Federal officials, I do not support the bill before us today.
  The bill we will soon be voting on would target all undocumented 
immigrants for deportation.
  It would divert already stretched local law enforcement resources 
away from dangerous criminals and from policing in their own 
communities. I do not support such an action.
  This bill also includes a detention requirement that goes beyond 
dangerous individuals--it would cover any immigrant sought to be 
detained.
  This is a standard that could be abused in another administration, 
and it is potentially a huge unfunded mandate to impose on States and 
localities.
  In addition to being an unfunded mandate, the bill would make drastic 
cuts to police departments, sheriffs departments, and local community 
programs.
  Specifically it would cut the COPS Hiring Program; the State Criminal 
Alien Assistance Program, known as SCAAP; and the Community Development 
Block Grant Program.
  Last year, 21 California jurisdictions received $13.2 million in COPS 
hiring grants to hire police officers.
  California also received $57 million in SCAAP funds to help cover 
costs of holding undocumented immigrants.
  And California communities received $356.9 million under the 
Community Development Block Grant Program.
  As a former mayor, I know how important these funds are to local 
communities.
  The bill would also impose lengthy Federal prison sentences on all 
undocumented immigrants.
  This would include mothers crossing the border to see their children.
  It would include agricultural workers who are vital to California's 
economy.
  It would include other essentially innocent individuals who simply 
want to make a better life for themselves and their families.
  In my view, this goes much too far, and I cannot support it.
  I would, however, like to talk further about the murders of Kate 
Steinle and Marilyn Pharis and what I believe should be done to protect 
public safety.
  Kate Steinle, a 32-year-old woman, was shot and killed in July while 
walking along San Francisco's Pier 14 with her father.
  The suspected shooter, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, had a long 
criminal record.
  He had seven felony convictions, including one for possession of 
heroin and another for manufacturing narcotics.
  He had also been removed from the country five times.
  The chain of events that led to Kate's murder began on March 23, when 
San Francisco County Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi requested that Lopez-
Sanchez be transferred from Federal prison to San Francisco.
  The sheriff's request was based on a 20-year-old marijuana possession 
warrant.
  On March 26, Lopez-Sanchez was booked into San Francisco County jail.
  However, the 20-year-old marijuana charge was quickly dropped, and 
Lopez-Sanchez was later released.
  Immigration and Customs Enforcement had asked Sheriff Mirkarimi to 
let the agency know when Lopez-Sanchez would be released. That did not 
happen.
  A simple phone call would have been enough, but Sheriff Mirkarimi 
failed to notify Federal officials.
  In July, only a few months after his release, Lopez-Sanchez shot and 
killed Kate Steinle.
  In fact, not only did the sheriff fail to notify, the failure was a 
consequence of a deliberate policy.
  Just weeks before his office requested the transfer of Lopez-Sanchez, 
the sheriff adopted a policy forbidding his own deputies from notifying 
immigration officials.
  The policy specifically states that sheriff department staff shall 
not provide release dates or times to immigration authorities.
  Let me be clear: this isn't State law or even San Francisco law. This 
is the sheriff's own policy.
  I believe this policy is wrong, and I have called on the sheriff to 
change it. San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee has made the same request.
  On July 24, Marilyn Pharis was brutally attacked with a hammer and 
sexually assaulted in her home by two suspects.
  The 64-year-old Air Force veteran died in the hospital from her 
injuries a week later.
  One of the individuals charged with this heinous crime is a 20-year-
old U.S. citizen named Jose Fernando Villagomez.
  The other is a 29-year-old undocumented immigrant named Victor 
Aureliano Martinez Ramirez.
  According to ICE, Martinez Ramirez was arrested in May 2014, but he 
had no prior felony convictions or deportations.
  He was subject to what is called an ICE detainer request, asking the 
local jurisdiction to hold him until ICE could pick him up.
  The local jurisdiction did not hold the suspect, nor did they notify 
ICE of his release.
  In the ensuing months, Martinez Ramirez accumulated multiple 
misdemeanor convictions, including possession of methamphetamine and 
battery.
  One of his convictions included a protection order requiring him to 
stay away from a particular individual.
  On July 20, he pleaded guilty to additional misdemeanor charges of 
possessing a dagger and drug paraphernalia.
  He was sentenced to 30 days, but that wasn't to begin until October 
31. He was released from custody and, 4 days later, allegedly attacked, 
raped, and killed Marilyn Pharis in her own home.
  I believe these two cases demonstrate the need for better 
communication between local, State, and Federal authorities before a 
dangerous individual with a criminal record is released.
  When our committee was set to markup an earlier bill from Senator 
Vitter, I prepared a simple amendment to ensure such communication 
happens. That markup was cancelled.

[[Page 16095]]

  I'd like to describe this approach now.
  First, it would require notification by a State or local agency of 
the impending release of certain dangerous individuals, if ICE requests 
such notification.
  It would apply to individuals where there is probable cause to 
believe they are aliens who are removable from the country and who pose 
a threat to the community.
  Immigration offenses would be covered only if the individual had 
actually received more than 1 year in prison, which would happen for a 
person with a significant criminal history.
  The amendment I prepared would not include harmful cuts to law 
enforcement and community programs, which I believe are unnecessary and 
unwise.
  The legal precedents from the Supreme Court show that Congress can 
impose a reporting requirement on a State or local government, without 
threatening harmful funding cuts.
  That is the approach I would take--I believe it would protect public 
safety without harming otherwise law-abiding immigrants or State or 
local law enforcement.
  Before I conclude, I'd like to remind my colleagues that this is not 
a choice between being pro-immigrant or pro-criminal.
  I am pro-immigrant. Immigrants make a tremendous contribution to this 
country and to my State.
  They work some of the most difficult jobs, from agriculture to 
construction to hospitality.
  They are part of the fabric of our country.
  I, myself, am the daughter of an immigrant.
  I strongly support comprehensive immigration reform, which I think is 
the only long-term solution to many of these problems.
  I also support the President's executive actions to eliminate the 
threat of deportation for young people who have been raised here, as 
well as the parents of American citizens.
  And I agree with immigrant advocates who want to prevent families 
from being separated because of a minor infraction like a broken 
taillight.
  The position I support strikes a balance.
  It would keep dangerous individuals off the street, while protecting 
otherwise law-abiding immigrants who are just here to work and provide 
their children with a better future.
  I believe the deaths of Kate Steinle and Marilyn Pharis could have 
been prevented.
  I believe we can and should fix the problems that led to their deaths 
by requiring that local officials notify Federal officials before they 
release dangerous criminals, if asked to do so.
  I oppose Senator Vitter's bill, which would sweep up otherwise law-
abiding immigrants and divert resources away from where they are most 
needed.
  We should focus our efforts on dangerous criminals, and I hope that 
when we again take up comprehensive immigration reform, that is what 
happens.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the death of Kate Steinle in San Francisco 
by a convicted felon who illegally crossed the border multiple times 
was horrific. It left a family heartbroken and shocked our community, 
our State, and our Nation.
  We cannot allow a tragedy like this to happen again.
  We should never give sanctuary to serious and violent felons, but 
this Republican bill is not the answer.
  Getting rid of sanctuary cities will not reduce crime--in fact, it 
will only increase crime and make us less safe.
  That is why this bill is opposed by law enforcement, immigrant rights 
organizations, faith groups, domestic violence groups, labor unions, 
housing and community development organizations, mayors of California's 
biggest cities, and the National League of Cities--as well as many 
others.
  The truth is that sanctuary cities keep our neighborhoods safe by 
promoting trust and cooperation between police officers and immigrant 
communities. And that trust is essential to protecting all of us.
  Let me give a quick example.
  A few years ago in Seattle, more than two dozen Asian women were 
sexually assaulted in the same neighborhood over a 2-year period.
  Because of the strong relationship between police and the community--
a community where police are generally prohibited from asking about 
immigration status--many of the immigrant victims were willing to come 
forward and share information with the police, which led to the 
perpetrator's arrest.
  Don't just take my word for it--listen to what law enforcement in our 
communities say about the importance of sanctuary city policies.
  As former San Jose Police Chief Rob Davis said: ``We have been 
fortunate enough to solve some terrible cases because of the 
willingness of illegal immigrants to step forward, and if they saw us 
as part of the immigration services, I just don't know if they'd do 
that anymore.''
  As Ohio Chief of Police Richard Biehl explained: ``Sanctuary policies 
and practices are not designed to harbor criminals. On the contrary, 
they exist to support community policing, ensuring that the community 
at large--including immigrant communities--trusts State and local law 
enforcement and feels secure in reporting criminal conduct.''
  Ending sanctuary policies would keep the voices of immigrant victims 
and witnesses quiet.
  That means crimes would go unreported, cases would go unsolved, and 
dangerous criminals would go unpunished.
  Ending these policies would actually give sanctuary to dangerous 
criminals because, without the help of immigrant communities, these 
violent offenders will continue to threaten our safety.
  We know this because there are many places in this country where 
immigrants do not feel safe coming forward.
  As Texas Sheriff Lupe Valdez said: ``A lot of undocumented 
individuals came from areas where they can't trust the police. The 
uniform has pushed them into the shadows. Good law enforcement cannot 
be carried out this way.''
  Just listen to some of the immigrants who were too terrified to come 
forward and report horrific crimes.
  Take it from Maria, an immigrant survivor of serious domestic 
violence, who fled from Texas to Indiana, where her abuser tracked her 
down.
  When he came to her house at midnight, she was too afraid to call 
911--fearing she could be deported--so she called her lawyer over and 
over. Because it was the middle of the night, her attorney was not at 
work and came in the next morning to a series of frantic messages left 
on her voicemail.
  Ultimately, Maria's abuser was not able to get into the house, but 
her life was in danger because she thought that law enforcement wasn't 
a safe option.
  Take it from Cecilia, a young Guatemalan girl in Colorado.
  Cecilia was sexually abused by a family friend at the age of 5. Her 
parents, undocumented immigrants, learned about the abuse, but they 
were terrified to report the crime to the police because they were told 
by family and friends that the police could not be trusted. They were 
told that, if they came forward, they would be reported to immigration 
and deported.
  A year later, the same perpetrator sexually abused another young 
child. It wasn't until the father of that child contacted Cecilia's 
parents that they decided to go to the police together, and the 
perpetrator was caught and prosecuted.
  But because of their initial fear of reporting the crime, another 
child was harmed.
  So why would we pass a bill that could discourage victims or 
witnesses from coming forward for help?
  Why would we pass a bill that would make it harder for law 
enforcement to solve crimes and keep our communities safe?
  This Republican bill is also dangerous because it would cut off COPS 
grants that help communities protect residents by hiring officers.
  We should be doing everything we can to help local police 
departments--not take away their ability to put officers on the street.
  Republicans also want to punish communities by taking away their

[[Page 16096]]

community development block grants, which would hurt thousands of 
working families who rely on these funds for safe, affordable housing 
and other critical services.
  This GOP bill would also take away SCAAP funding, which reimburses 
State and local governments for the costs of incarcerating undocumented 
immigrants. This funding has been repeatedly slashed, and it has never 
been enough--especially in my State of California, which spends nearly 
$1 billion a year on these incarceration costs.
  These cuts would have devastating impact on States and local 
communities.
  Now, there are some California communities reviewing their specific 
policies and forging cooperation agreements with Federal immigration 
officials--and I think that's a good thing.
  I believe that State and local officials should examine their 
policies to ensure that they are preserving the trust that law 
enforcement has built in our communities, while keeping serious and 
violent felons off our streets.
  Unfortunately, this Republican bill would do the exact opposite--it 
would undermine the trust that has been developed between police and 
immigrant communities, and it would set back efforts to solve cases and 
put dangerous criminals behind bars.
  The real question is: Why are we even considering this bill?
  Why isn't Congress passing the bipartisan comprehensive immigration 
reform bill that the Senate passed more than 2 years ago?
  That bipartisan bill would make our country safer by adding 20,000 
more Border Patrol agents; increasing surveillance; and hiring 
additional prosecutors and judges to boost prosecutions of illegal 
border crossings.
  The measure would also make clear that serious or violent felons will 
never get a pathway to citizenship or legal status.
  And the bill would bring families out of the shadows--so that they 
don't fear being deported or separated from their families . . . so 
they feel comfortable cooperating with police and reporting crimes in 
their communities.
  Let's make our communities safer by passing real immigration reform 
and by defeating this misguided Republican bill.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.

                          ____________________