[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16096-16100]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           STOP SANCTUARY POLICIES AND PROTECT AMERICANS ACT

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, from January through August of 2014, over 
8,100 aliens that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had 
identified for deportation were released back into our communities by 
sanctuary jurisdictions. Over 5,000 of those released had a criminal 
history. In that same time period, 1,900 of those 8,100 went on to be 
charged with another 7,500 crimes.
  These are crimes that would not have been committed had local 
authorities cooperated with Federal authorities in enforcing our laws.
  This summer, everyone heard the case of Kate Steinle who was shot and 
killed in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant who had seven felony 
convictions and had been deported five times. Rather than turn him over 
to ICE, San Francisco released him, allowing him to commit more crimes. 
This guy even admitted that he was in San Francisco because their 
liberal laws would protect him.
  While this one case received the media attention it deserved, many 
other preventable crimes don't.
  For example, the city of Los Angeles released one immigrant who had 
been arrested for the continuous sexual abuse of a child. ICE wanted 
custody of this deviant. ICE tried to get custody of him. However, 
rather than hand him over to Federal law enforcement and get this guy 
out of our country and away from our children, Los Angeles ignored 
ICE's detainer and released him. He was later arrested for sodomy of a 
victim under 10 years old. Another child became a victim of this 
predator because liberal policies would rather release him into our 
communities then get him out of our country.
  This year, sanctuary cities have already released more than 9,000 
criminal aliens from jail and these criminals are committing more 
crimes.
  In California, an immigrant was arrested for battery last year, but 
instead of turning him over to ICE, the local sheriff released him. 
This July, he raped and beat a 64-year-old woman so severely that she 
died 8 days later--yet another preventable death due to the intentional 
failure of a jurisdiction to comply with federal law.
  How many more do we have to have before people realize what these 
policies are doing to our communities? Over 300 States, cities, and 
counties have sanctuary laws, ordinances, or policies that protect 
criminals and hurt the innocent. These jurisdictions continue to 
receive money from the Federal Government even though they continue to 
ignore Federal laws and rebuff Federal agencies working to enforce the 
laws.
  Enough is enough.
  I believe that, if a jurisdiction chooses not to cooperate with 
federal law enforcement, they should not be the beneficiary of federal 
grants. This is why I cosponsored S. 2146, the Stop Sanctuary Policies 
and Protect Americans Act, which my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle filibustered. It is why I have cosponsored similar legislation 
introduced by Senator Sessions.
  Unfortunately, others would rather let politics come before doing 
what they know is right and failed to protect our communities from 
further victimization. When the proper enforcement of current law could 
save lives and protect the innocent, how could you not vote to do so?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The Senator from New York.


                         Donnelly Confirmation

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am going to discuss the bill on the 
floor in a minute, but first I wish to take a moment to congratulate 
the newly confirmed district judge for the Eastern District of New 
York, Ann Donnelly. She just passed the Senate with a vote of 95 to 2--
nearly unanimous and deservedly so.
  There are few more qualified for a Federal judgeship than Ann 
Donnelly. She has dedicated her life to public service, having spent a 
quarter decade as a prosecutor in the prestigious New York County 
District Attorney's Office under Bob Morgenthau. She accumulated a host 
of awards there and rose through the leadership ranks of the office. 
Then, in 2009, she became a State court judge in New York, hearing a 
wide variety of cases. She has a stellar academic record, having 
graduated from the University of Michigan and Ohio State University 
School of Law.
  I could tick off more of her accomplishments, and the list would be 
long, but Judge Donnelly is more than a brilliant resume. I know her 
well. She is at her core a kind, thoughtful, and compassionate person. 
Anyone who knows her or who has interacted with her even briefly knows 
she is fair, open-minded, and has exactly the kind of temperament that 
will make her an exceptional Federal judge.
  I congratulate Ann Donnelly and her family--particularly her mother--
on her confirmation. I know her mother is so proud of her. It is a 
milestone day in her career and a bright day for the Eastern District 
of New York.
  Mr. President, today the Senate will turn its attention to a divisive 
immigration bill that has no hope of becoming law. Today's vote won't 
be on a comprehensive bill, as was the one the Senate passed 2 years 
ago--one that secures our borders, provides a jolt to the economy, 
provides a pathway to citizenship for hard-working, law-abiding 
immigrants who pay their taxes to get right with the law.
  I want to be clear with the American people on this. Today's vote is 
nothing but a political show vote. Senator Vitter knows his bill has no 
chance of passing the Senate or being signed into law. As stated by my 
friend the Republican junior Senator from Nevada--here is what he said: 
``You know we have votes because people are running for president, so I 
am not surprised we have votes because people are running for 
governor.'' No other sentence sums it up better as to what a waste of 
time this is, and that is to say nothing about the substance of the 
bill, which has drawn opposition from nearly every important interest 
group. A

[[Page 16097]]

broad coalition of major law enforcement groups, faith groups, labor, 
cities, elected officials, housing advocates, and immigrant rights 
groups oppose this bill. I suspect there are Members of the Republican 
caucus who oppose many parts of it. Why? Because it is a bill that 
would jeopardize hundreds of millions of dollars in the name of 
punishing immigrants and cities where they live.
  This bill would strip away community development block grants, 
community COPS grants to hire more cops, and SCAAP, a proposal that 
funds jurisdictions that are doing what many on the other side want 
them to do by locking up unauthorized immigrants who commit crimes. 
Everyone believes that if a person commits a serious crime unrelated to 
being an immigrant--not like crossing the border or forging a document 
but a serious crime--law enforcement should be required to cooperate 
and those folks should be deported, plain and simple. But in the name 
of trying to help law enforcement, this bill hurts law enforcement 
because it will take away so many of the grants law enforcement needs. 
It will take away the grants that help create a way of incarcerating 
those who commit serious crimes.
  All of these cuts would come while also astronomically increasing the 
size of prison population and related costs, without decreasing the 
deficit by a single dime. This will put a huge burden on our State and 
local taxpayers. Their taxes would go way up if this bill were passed 
into law and implemented.
  To be clear, the death of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco was 
tragic. It never should have happened. I mourn not only her family but 
the family of any American killed in a senseless act of gun violence. 
For people like the killer of Ms. Steinle, law enforcement should 
cooperate with the Federal authorities and deport those folks.
  This is not the way to exercise better law enforcement. Punishing 
cities and communities and yanking Federal funding from cops will not 
get us to a better immigration system or safeguard our communities.
  The bill we passed in 2013, which I was proud to author with a number 
of Democratic and Republican colleagues, is the opposite of this bill 
in every way. Our bill was supported by a broad coalition of groups, 
from business, labor, faith communities, immigrant communities, and law 
enforcement. Our bill paid for itself and went on to decrease the 
deficit by $160 billion over 10 years and to increase GDP by 3.3 
percent. Our bill secured the border--this bill doesn't do that--not 
only with more resources and staff but by cracking down on repeat 
border crossers and those who overstay their visas. It did it in a 
smart way. The goal of our friend from Louisiana isn't accomplished in 
his bill, but it is in comprehensive immigration reform--the goal of 
making sure those who are repeat border crossers and those who overstay 
their visas are dealt with properly.
  Our bill paved a tough but fair pathway to citizenship, shielding 
law-abiding immigrants from deportation, fostering trust with law 
enforcement, and exposing the criminals in their communities who would 
rather live in the shadows.
  Our bill was a bipartisan compromise. There is no compromise here. I 
daresay many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, when they 
look at provisions in this bill, do not like them. This is a show 
vote--a vote, as my Republican colleague from Nevada said, to help 
someone in his quest for political office.
  There are so many vitally important policy debates we could be 
turning to today. Instead, the Senate Republican leadership insists on 
leading us into this dark, divisive place for nothing more than 
political theater. Think of the urgent bipartisan issues we should be 
working on, including the debt ceiling. We are about to default because 
of the shenanigans going on on the other side. The Perkins Loan Program 
so that kids can go to college; the land and water conservation 
programs are expiring. The highway bill--we don't have a highway bill, 
yet we are doing this. And if we don't take action by the end of the 
year, millions of seniors will see a 52-percent increase in their 
Medicare bill. How many Americans would want us to do that and not the 
divisive show vote that has no chance of passing?
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Just as importantly, I beg 
my colleagues to join us on this side of the aisle in turning to a 
serious debate on comprehensive immigration reform--something they have 
so far refused to do.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The Senator is advised that the Senate is under an order to recess at 
this time.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for such time as I may consume and that Senator Hirono be 
recognized following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on S. 2146, the Stop 
Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, which the Senate will 
vote on shortly and which our colleagues have been speaking about.
  First, I want to recognize and thank my colleagues for joining in 
this effort--Senator Vitter, Senator Grassley, Senator Cruz, and 
Senator Johnson--and introducing this very important bill. I can't 
believe the way it is being mischaracterized, and I will try to address 
some of those mischaracterizations.
  Let's be clear. This bill is about keeping our communities safe from 
violent crime. That is what it is about. It is necessary because of the 
sanctuary cities that we have across America.
  This is not a manufactured problem. This is a very real problem. 
There is one father who knows about it all too well. Jim Steinle was 
walking arm in arm with his daughter on a pier in San Francisco. 
Suddenly a gunman leaps out, opens fire, and hits Kate. She falls into 
her father's arms and pleads, ``Help me, dad,'' while she bleeds to 
death.
  What is so outrageous about this, among other things, is that the 
shooter never should have been on the pier that day, in the first 
place. He was an illegal immigrant who had been convicted of seven 
felonies. He had been deported five times, and there he is on the San 
Francisco pier, shooting and killing an innocent woman. It is more 
outrageous than that. Just 3 months earlier, the Department of Homeland 
Security had asked the San Francisco Police Department, when they had 
picked up this man, to hold him until DHS officials could come and get 
him. They had made that specific request when this man was in the 
custody of the San Francisco Police Department, but San Francisco 
refused to cooperate. Knowing that DHS wanted them to hold this man for 
a short period of time until their agents could get there and take him 
into custody, having had that request from DHS, San Francisco said no, 
and they released him so he could then go out and commit a murder.
  Why in the world would they release a man such as this when DHS has 
asked them to hold him? It is because San Francisco is a sanctuary 
city. What that means is that it is the policy of the city of San 
Francisco--having commanded their local law enforcement, their police 
department--to not cooperate with Federal officials seeking to 
prosecute immigration issues. Even when they want to cooperate, they 
are forbidden from cooperating. Think about how absurd this is.
  If Federal officials had called the San Francisco Police Department 
about any other kind of crime--larceny, burglary, a trademark 
violation--they would have been happy to cooperate. They would have 
cooperated, in fact. But because the crime was related to illegal 
immigration, the San Francisco Police Department's hands were tied. The 
police were forced to release the man who would then go on and kill 
Kate Steinle. As a father of three young children, I can't even begin 
to think about the pain that the Steinles just went through, and what 
is so maddening is that it was entirely unnecessary.

[[Page 16098]]

  Sadly, this is not the only case, as you know. According to the 
Department of Homeland Security, during an 8-month period last year, 
sanctuary jurisdictions--cities and counties that have adopted this 
policy of noncooperation--have released over 8,000 illegal immigrants 
they had in their custody, and 1,800 of these were later arrested for 
criminal acts. This includes two cities that refused to hold 
individuals who had been arrested for child sexual abuse. In both cases 
the individuals were later arrested for sexually assaulting young 
children. This is how outrageous this has become.
  For the record, let me make it clear that I completely understand 
that the vast majority of immigrants would not commit these crimes. 
That is not what this is about. But the truth of the matter is that any 
large group of individuals is going to have a certain number of 
criminals within it. Of the 11 million people who are here illegally, 
some are inevitably violent criminals.
  The Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act provides a 
solution to this in three parts. First, under our legislation sanctuary 
jurisdictions will lose certain Federal funds. If a city or county or 
municipality decides they will declare or forbid their law enforcement 
officials from cooperating and even sharing information with Federal 
Department of Homeland Security officials, they will lose some Federal 
funding.
  Second, this legislation includes Kate's Law. This provides for a 
mandatory minimum 5-year sentence for a person who reenters the United 
States illegally after having been convicted of an aggravated felony or 
having been convicted twice before of illegal reentry.
  Finally, there is the third part of this legislation. Across America 
dozens of municipalities that had been cooperating with Federal 
immigration officials have been forced to become sanctuary communities 
or counties because several Federal courts have held that local law 
enforcement may not cooperate when DHS asks them to hold an illegal 
immigrant. They maintain that there is not the statutory authority for 
local law enforcement to do so. Therefore, if the local police were to 
cooperate, as they should, they would be liable for damages, and this 
would apply even to dangerous criminal cases. We solve that problem by 
making it clear that when local law enforcement is acting in a fashion 
consistent with what DHS is requesting--what DHS has the authority to 
do themselves--then there would be no such legal liability.
  Some of my Democratic colleagues have said that we don't need this 
legislation and that all we need is greater cooperation between Federal 
and local law enforcement. Well, that is absolutely factually 
incorrect. It is not possible to have the level of cooperation that we 
need to have because of these court decisions, because the court 
decisions effectively are precluding the kind of cooperation that we 
need. That is why Congress needs to act.
  We need to make it clear that local law enforcement can in fact hold 
somebody that the Department of Homeland Security needs to have held, 
just as the Department of Homeland Security has that authority 
themselves. The Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act 
provides a valid solution. It confirms that local law enforcement 
officers are allowed to cooperate when Federal officials ask them to 
hold illegal immigrants.
  It is carefully drafted to protect individual liberties. If an 
individual's civil liberties or constitutional rights are violated, 
than that individual can still file suit and can still seek a remedy, 
and that is as it should be. But this legislation to stop sanctuary 
policies act really should have very broad bipartisan support.
  Let's keep in mind the people we are talking about here. As a 
practical matter, the only cases in which this applies is that small 
subset of illegal immigrants who even the Obama administration wishes 
to hold for deportation--only that small subset of people that the 
Obama administration believes is dangerous enough to warrant removal. 
Really, we can't even have local law enforcement officials cooperate 
under those circumstances?
  President Obama's own Secretary of Homeland Security has declared 
that sanctuary cities are ``not acceptable.'' He has described them as 
``counterproductive to public safety.'' There is no real basis for 
voting no on this.
  Opponents have turned to misrepresenting this in many ways, but the 
facts are overwhelming.
  There are three national law enforcement groups that have written a 
powerful letter addressing some of the misrepresentations that have 
been made about this bill. They have reaffirmed their support for this 
bill. They include the National Sheriffs' Association, the National 
Association of Police Organizations, and the Federal Law Enforcement 
Officers Association.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have their letter printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 October 20, 2015.
     Senator David Vitter,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
     Chairman Chuck Grassley,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Ron Johnson,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Pat Toomey,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Ted Cruz,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Vitter, Toomey, Grassley, Cruz, and Johnson: 
     On behalf of the National Sheriffs' Association, the National 
     Association of Police Organizations, and the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Officers Association and the local, state, and 
     federal law enforcement officers we represent, we write to 
     reiterate our support for the Stop Sanctuary Policies and 
     Protect Americans Act (S.2146) and to correct some 
     misrepresentations regarding the Act.
       As the law enforcement officers on the front lines working 
     to protect our communities, we know firsthand the challenges 
     facing police officers. We know when a bill makes our jobs 
     more difficult and when a bill makes our jobs easier.
       We have been surprised to hear some misrepresent this bill 
     and its effects on law enforcement.
       For example, some have claimed that the Stop Sanctuary 
     Policies Act will ``requir[e] state and local law enforcement 
     to carry out the federal government's immigration enforcement 
     responsibilities,'' and thus ``the federal government would 
     be substituting its judgment for the judgment of state and 
     local law enforcement agencies.'' Nothing in the Stop 
     Sanctuary Policies Act requires local law enforcement ``to 
     carry out federal immigration responsibilities.'' Removing 
     illegal immigrants remains the exclusive province of the 
     federal government. The bill simply withholds certain federal 
     funds from jurisdictions that prohibit their local law 
     enforcement officers from cooperating with federal officials 
     in the limited circumstance of honoring an immigration 
     detainer. It is politicians in sanctuary jurisdictions who, 
     by tying the hands of local law enforcement, are 
     ``substituting [their] judgment for the judgment of state and 
     local law enforcement.''
       Others have resorted to scare tactics, warning that that 
     S.2146 will lead to the deportation of those who report 
     crimes to law enforcement. This is simply false. The bill 
     provides that if a jurisdiction has a policy that it will not 
     inquire about the immigration status of crime victims or 
     witnesses, the jurisdiction will not be deemed a sanctuary 
     jurisdiction and will not lose any federal funds.
       To be clear: We believe the Stop Sanctuary Policies Act 
     will make America safer, enhance the ability of police to 
     protect and serve, and provide greater flexibility for law 
     enforcement officers at every level--federal, state, and 
     local.
       We also write to address those Members of Congress who 
     insist that the Stop Sanctuary Policies Act is not needed; 
     instead, Congress should ``encourage'' local officers to 
     cooperate with federal officials. This ignores one crucial 
     fact: Across America, federal courts have issued decisions 
     forbidding local officers from cooperating with federal 
     requests to hold an illegal immigrant. These decisions

[[Page 16099]]

     provide that local law enforcement and municipalities may be 
     sued if they cooperate with federal officials to detain 
     dangerous criminals. Under these decisions, even if a federal 
     official would have had the authority to hold the individual, 
     local law enforcement can still be sued.
       Too often, local law enforcement officers are left with a 
     terrible choice: Either release an individual who has been 
     convicted of or arrested for violent crimes, or be sued and 
     lose funds that are needed to protect our communities. As a 
     result of these lawsuits, scores of cities and counties 
     across America have become sanctuary jurisdictions.
       The Stop Sanctuary Policies Act provides a solution. The 
     bill confirms that local law enforcement may cooperate with 
     federal requests to hold an illegal immigrant. The bill 
     provides that when local officers comply with such requests, 
     they are delegated the same powers to hold an illegal 
     immigrant as a DHS official would have. If the detention 
     would have been legal if carried out by the Department of 
     Homeland Security (DHS), then under S.2146 it is still legal; 
     it does not become a crime simply because it is a local 
     sheriff acting instead of a DHS official.
       This provision was carefully drafted to protect individual 
     liberties. It preserves an individual's ability to sue for a 
     violation of a constitutional or civil rights, regardless of 
     whether the violation was the result of negligence or was 
     purposeful. Under S.2146, if there was no basis to detain the 
     individual--DHS issued the request for someone in the U.S. 
     legally--the individual may still sue for a violation of 
     rights. The difference is that the party responsible for the 
     error, the federal government, is liable; not a local police 
     officer or jailer acting in good faith. If a local law 
     enforcement officer acts improperly--mistreating an 
     individual or continuing to hold an individual after federal 
     officials issue a release order--the individual may sue, with 
     the local officer liable for all costs and judgments.
       Contrary to the assertions of the American Civil Liberties 
     Union (ACLU)--the party that has orchestrated these lawsuits 
     against local law enforcement officers--the Stop Sanctuary 
     Policies Act is fully consistent with the Fourth Amendment. 
     In a letter to Congress, the ACLU states, ``The Fourth 
     Amendment provides that the government cannot hold anyone in 
     jail without getting a warrant or the approval of a judge.'' 
     The fact is that the Constitution requires probable cause to 
     detain an individual, which can be established by a judicial 
     warrant issued before the arrest or by a demonstration of 
     probable cause after the arrest. Otherwise police could never 
     arrest someone whom they see committing a crime. The Stop 
     Sanctuary Policies Act does not alter the requirement for 
     probable cause. To the contrary, S.2146 explicitly preserves 
     an individual's ability to sue if he or she is held without 
     probable cause or has suffered any other violation of a 
     constitutional right.
       The ACLU also tries scare tactics. It claims that the Stop 
     Sanctuary Policies Act includes ``provisions requiring DHS to 
     absorb all liability in lawsuits brought by individuals 
     unlawfully detained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.'' 
     This is false. If a lawsuit alleges that a local officer 
     knowingly violated Fourth Amendment or other constitutional 
     rights, then under S.2146, the individual officer will bear 
     all liability--not the federal government. For some lawsuits, 
     the U.S. will be substituted as defendant--specifically, 
     suits alleging that that the immigration detainer should not 
     have been issued. But such a claim could already be brought 
     against the U.S. under existing law; thus, S.2146 does not 
     create a new source of liability for the federal government. 
     S.2146 simply provides that if the federal government made 
     the error, the federal government should be the defendant.
       We, the law enforcement officers of America, are on the 
     front lines day after day. We know the challenges of 
     apprehending criminals and the difficulties of working with 
     crime victims and witnesses--especially those who may be 
     fearful of local and federal authorities. Based on our 
     collective knowledge and experience, we strongly support the 
     Stop Sanctuary Policies Act (S.2146) and urge the Senate to 
     pass this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
     National Sheriffs' Association.
     National Association of Police Organizations.
     Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, let me finish by reminding my colleagues 
that the vote we are about to have is not actually a vote on this bill 
in its current form. If Members object to a provision in it or they 
want to add a provision in it, then, by all means, let's vote to get on 
the bill. Let's open up debate, and we will have amendments, we will 
have a discussion, and we will have a debate. They are free to attempt 
to improve this bill and modify this bill, as they see fit.
  This vote today is not a final passage vote. It is a vote on whether 
the issue of sanctuary jurisdictions is important enough to merit the 
Senate's consideration.
  I was just shocked to hear one of our colleagues describe this bill 
as a waste of time. Really, a waste of time? That is unbelievable. How 
could the lives of Kate Steinle and the other victims who have been 
lost because of this ridiculous policy be a waste of the Senate's time 
when the courts are precluding the cooperation between local and 
Federal law enforcement officials because we have not acted? There is a 
simple solution. It starts with passing a motion to proceed so we can 
get on this bill and hopefully complete it successfully. I think the 
lives of Kate Steinle and the other victims are not a waste of time. I 
think we should be addressing this issue. We should be addressing it 
today.
  I urge my colleagues to vote aye so that we can begin considering 
this very important--and it should be broadly supported--bipartisan 
piece of legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I would like to urge my colleagues to 
oppose 
S. 2146, the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act.
  Hundreds of cities and local jurisdictions across our country have 
financial, constitutional, and public safety concerns with using scarce 
local tax dollars to hold immigrants in jail when they otherwise would 
be entitled to release under the law. These cities and towns are being 
called sanctuary cities because they have made a local and fact-based 
choice to keep their communities safe rather than serve as an arm of 
immigration enforcement.
  This bill would create new criminal penalties for undocumented 
immigrants and make life even harder for them, most of whom are honest, 
hard-working people, not criminals. The bill also takes severe steps to 
penalize these sanctuary cities by stripping them of critical community 
block grants and Federal homeland security and law enforcement funding. 
While this bill purports to protect our communities, it is strongly 
opposed by law enforcement, victims' advocates, and local and State 
government leaders.
  Why do they oppose this bill?
  Demonizing our immigrant communities and using them as scapegoats 
does not make America safer. Decades of research shows the following: 
that immigrants as a group are not a threat to public safety, that 
immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes than the rest of 
Americans, and that the higher rates of immigration are associated with 
lower rates of violent crime.
  Law enforcement is clear. This bill would limit their ability to keep 
all people in their communities safe. Good community policy requires 
collaboration and trust. Our law enforcement officials want to spend 
their time going after people who truly pose a threat to our safety. 
This bill would have us spend limited resources pursuing hardworking 
though undocumented members of their communities with no criminal 
history. Community law enforcement should not be coerced, because that 
is what this bill would require. It is a requirement. Community law 
enforcement should not be coerced into serving as an arm of Federal 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That is what this bill does. 
Nobody is talking about voluntary collaboration and support for Federal 
Government enforcement of laws. Throughout this Congress, my Republican 
colleagues often rail against the Federal Government telling State and 
local governments what to do, but now when it comes to something as 
important as public safety and law enforcement, it is suddenly OK to 
second guess State and local law enforcement?
  Instead of turning hard-working immigrants into bogeymen, we should 
be focusing on real solutions for violent crime in our communities. If 
my colleagues who support this bill are serious about addressing 
violence in America, then they should come to the table to talk about 
how we can strengthen our laws to keep guns out of the hands of 
criminals and the mentally ill.

[[Page 16100]]

  I have been saying, along with many of my colleagues for over a year 
now, if my Republican colleagues want to discuss immigration reform, we 
welcome that debate. Everyone agrees our immigration system is broken 
and needs reform. It has been 28 months since the Senate passed a 
comprehensive immigration bill that had strong bipartisan support.
  Even though it was not perfect from my perspective, we nonetheless 
worked together to come up with a compromise bill, but House 
Republicans ducked the issue and refused to take up the immigration 
reform bill. The Senate comprehensive immigration bill would have 
reduced the Federal deficit by $1 trillion in just two decades because 
of the broad economic benefits immigration reform granted.
  It would have protected and united families, strengthened our border 
security, improved our economy, and encouraged job creation in our 
country. The Senate's bill would have gotten millions of people out of 
the shadows, requiring them to pass criminal background checks and earn 
their path to citizenship. It would have let immigration enforcement 
officials focus on true security threats to our country.
  The Senate's immigration bill included $46 billion in new resources 
to help our Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. 
Of this amount, roughly $30 billion was added to the bill to further 
secure our borders, but that is not enough for some Republicans. 
Apparently, some will not be happy until we literally round up every 
undocumented immigrant--some 11 million of them in our country--and 
deport them, which would be catastrophic to our economy, not to mention 
impossible to do. The current sanctuary cities debate is not the first 
time some have tried to use myths about immigrants to scare Americans. 
This rhetoric could not be further from the truth about immigrants.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose these scare tactics and to vote no on 
the motion to proceed to S. 2146.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________