[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12237-12244]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3009, ENFORCE THE LAW FOR SANCTUARY 
                               CITIES ACT

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 370 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 370

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3009) to 
     amend section 241(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     to deny assistance under such section to a State or political 
     subdivision of a State that prohibits its officials from 
     taking certain actions with respect to immigration. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
     any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous materials on House Resolution 370, currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule 
forward on behalf of the Rules Committee.
  The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3009, the Enforce the Law 
for Sanctuary Cities Act. The Rules Committee met yesterday evening and

[[Page 12238]]

heard testimony from both the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, in addition to 
several Members interested in this important issue.
  This rule brought forward by the committee is a closed rule and 
provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.
  We are bringing this rule forward today because both the safety of 
American people and the integrity of our system of laws depends on its 
passage. No institution, body, or agency has the right to selectively 
apply the law or selectively enforce the law.
  The same individuals who claim exemption from our immigration laws 
demand equality under our criminal laws. Do we really want to live in a 
country where an agency claims the authority to pass political judgment 
on you and your circumstance to determine if the law applies to you?
  This is precisely what the administration is proposing. Not only are 
their actions contrary to public safety, they fundamentally undermine 
the most basic concept of law.
  I believe that sanctuary cities are unacceptable. That is why I was a 
part of the effort to prohibit them in Georgia and why I am so 
committed to continuing this fight here in Congress.
  The tragic and preventible death of Kate Steinle in San Francisco at 
the hands of an illegal immigrant is the latest example of why we have 
to address sanctuary cities and enforce the law. Hear me, Mr. Speaker. 
Kate is not the only victim.
  According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, of 74,911 Federal crimes 
in fiscal year 2014, 27,505, or 36 percent, were committed by those 
here illegally.
  During an 8-month period in 2014, sanctuary cities released more than 
8,000 criminal illegal immigrant offenders the U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement was seeking to deport.
  According to a new report released by the Center for Immigration 
Studies, of these 8,000 released, approximately 1,900 were arrested for 
successive crimes during the 8-month timeframe.
  I believe San Francisco's hands are soaked in blood now. They choose 
to protect criminal illegal aliens over an innocent American woman.
  Beyond the public safety threat posed by sanctuary cities, the 
Federal Government has the responsibility to be good stewards of tax 
dollars entrusted to them by hard-working Americans.
  There is no reasonable explanation, in law or policy, as to why the 
Federal Government should send money to cities in the form of grants or 
reimbursements to help them enforce the law when they are blatantly 
ignoring the law.
  It is a waste of taxpayer money to send this money to States for 
purposes of law enforcement when they clearly aren't using it for that 
purpose.
  The situation before us today is one dangerous political hypocrisy. 
The administration has vocally stated immigration law lies with the 
Federal Government and the Federal Government alone.
  In fact, their entire case against Arizona was premised on that 
point. That was when States were trying to enforce the law.
  When States don't enforce the law, essentially playing into the 
administration's failure to enforce the administration's claims, there 
is nothing they can do. It is sort of an interesting proposition.
  Last week I questioned the Secretary of Homeland Security about the 
issues of sanctuary cities. The Secretary stated there was nothing that 
DHS could do and that he didn't feel it was productive to try and force 
the cities to cooperate.
  The administration jumped all over States that help enforce 
immigration laws, including suing Arizona for enacting laws to protect 
its borders and its citizens.
  I ask: Where is the outrage by the administration over San 
Francisco's failure to follow the law? Where is the lawsuit?
  It is not surprising that the administration is only outraged when 
States are acting in a manner that doesn't meet their political goals.
  DHS refuses to make sanctuary cities comply with the law while, at 
the same time, DOJ is now requiring law enforcement in Maricopa County, 
Arizona, to provide services in Spanish to jail inmates and to have 
Federal oversight for all workforce enforcement raids. This kind of 
political hypocrisy is the kind that has already cost the life of Kate 
Steinle.
  The administration wants a nonenforcement policy, but it is up to 
Congress to make the administration follow the law. That is exactly why 
the Rules Committee is bringing forward this rule and H.R. 3009.
  Sanctuary cities ignore and shield illegal immigrants at the expense 
of law-abiding Americans, and the administration, through its failure 
to defend and enforce this law, is complicit.
  Listen, Mr. Speaker, I believe that sanctuary cities should be 
descriptions of cities that provide safe and secure places for law-
abiding citizens, not the definition for cities choosing to provide 
safety for those flaunting our immigration laws.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying 
bill. The rule here today provides for consideration of H.R. 3009, a 
bill that I strongly oppose that wouldn't even solve the problem that 
it attempts to here today.
  First, a little bit about the process. This is a closed process that 
reflects the practice of shutting down debate on the House floor.
  We should be talking about how to protect Americans like Kathryn 
Steinle. Instead, we are limited to debating a bill that, even if it 
had been the law, would not have affected this case or others like it 
or secured our borders. We are not even allowed to introduce amendments 
that would secure our borders here before the House floor.
  We have not had a single hearing on this bill, and it has not been 
marked up in committee. It simply appeared before the Judiciary 
Committee.
  It simply appeared before the Rules Committee yesterday fully formed. 
We talked for several hours about many of its flaws there. But, 
unfortunately, nevertheless, it has been advanced under this rule to 
the House floor.
  This bill is not a fix. It is not a solution to anything. It is a 
heavy-handed way to attack communities that are simply trying to find 
solutions to what is fundamentally a Federal problem.
  Yes, Mr. Speaker, dress it up however you like. It is our fault, the 
institution of Congress' fault, the Federal Government's fault, that we 
have failed to secure our borders.
  It is the Federal Government's fault that there are 10-, 12-, 14 
million people in our country illegally, some of them felon immigrants. 
That is not the fault of any city or county or State.
  Our law enforcement professionals--sheriffs, police chiefs--are doing 
the best they can with the facts on the ground which work against them 
because of this body's failure to act.
  This bill before us is simply an attempt to provide a false solution 
to a tragic incident, this in spite of the fact this body has refused 
to bring forward a single bill to fix our broken immigration system or 
secure our border.
  The murder of Kathryn Steinle was a terrible tragedy. It should not 
have occurred. There were so many breakages along the way and things 
that could have been done to prevent it. But this action is primarily a 
way to highlight our broken immigration system.
  It is a disgrace, for instance, that our immigration enforcement 
agencies dedicate significant resources to pursuing tens of thousands 
of individuals with no criminal history while the enforcement of our 
laws against serious felons like Mr. Lopez-Sanchez, as a result, is 
limited to something like a phone call or an email from the sheriff in 
San Francisco.

                              {time}  1030

  ICE, the agency with sole authority to pursue, detain, and deport 
people

[[Page 12239]]

within our borders--an agency with a budget of more than $5 billion 
annually--is to blame here for its perverse allocation of resources.
  Mr. Speaker, ICE should have pursued this individual vigorously, and 
ICE is responsible for the fact that this man was walking the streets 
of San Francisco instead of in Mexico; but, rather than take 
responsibility for this tragedy and commit to making the necessary 
changes to prevent anything like this from happening in the future--
like, for instance, encapsulating the President's DACA and DAPA 
programs in statute so that our limited enforcement resources can be 
focused on criminal felons rather than tens of thousands of individuals 
with no criminal history--instead of doing that, this body is 
threatening local law enforcement with reducing their funds to keep 
communities safe.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill before us would do even less to address this 
issue in a meaningful way. This legislation undermines local law 
enforcement, tramples the 10th Amendment to our Constitution, and 
directly undermines the authority and judgment exercised by local law 
enforcement agencies that are simply trying to do their job as best 
they can in light of a Federal failure--a Federal failure--to deport 
felon immigrants, a Federal failure to secure our borders, and a 
Federal failure to establish enforcement priorities in statute.
  These decisions behind policing communities and ensuring public 
safety are made by those in those jurisdictions. We shouldn't have 
reactionary politicians in Washington threatening to cut off funding to 
sheriffs and police chiefs to make their communities less safe and lead 
to more victims of felons, both immigrant and American.
  That is why this bill is opposed by the Conference of Mayors, Law 
Enforcement Immigration Task Force, the Fraternal Order of Police, and 
many other law enforcement professionals.
  The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that article I, section 8 of the 
Constitution, which we began the session of Congress by reading, makes 
it clear that it is the Federal Government's responsibility to create 
and enforce immigration policy.
  No matter how much this body tries to pass its failure on to cities, 
States, and counties, it will always come back here because only the 
Federal Government can secure our borders, only the Federal Government 
can establish enforcement priorities in statute, only the Federal 
Government can provide a pathway to citizenship, and only the Federal 
Government deports felon immigrants.
  Despite this, however, Congress has displayed a complete and total 
unwillingness to even begin the debate on fixing our broken immigration 
system, instead choosing to threaten local law enforcement for our own 
failures in this town, Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Speaker, I tried to reinitiate this debate just yesterday in the 
Rules Committee by introducing an amendment to this bill that would 
have allowed us to address the systemic problems by considering 
comprehensive immigration reform, including border security. 
Unfortunately, on a party-line vote, my measure was voted down and, 
therefore, in favor of maintaining this status quo.
  Instead of having a meaningful debate on how to make our immigration 
system work in our favor and keep Americans safe by keeping immigrant 
felons off the street and securing our border, the Republicans are 
instead insisting to push this bill through the House, threatening 
local law enforcement without hearing, committee debate, or even the 
opportunity to amend it with good ideas from Democrats or Republicans.
  Felons and egregious immigration violators like Mr. Lopez-Sanchez 
should not be free to walk the streets of this country, but until this 
body gets serious about securing our border and creating enforceable 
laws with the resources to enforce them, people like Mr. Lopez-Sanchez 
will walk free and will continue to harm Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation will effectively require local 
enforcement of immigration laws, effectively trying to foist off our 
responsibilities on beleaguered local law enforcement agencies who, 
with their limited resources, are making the best judgments they can to 
keep their communities safe.
  Federal courts have found that the DHS detainer policies violate the 
Constitution. Because ICE detainers request that a person be held in 
local custody for up to 2 days beyond the time they would otherwise be 
released, Federal courts have concluded that ICE detainers cause a new 
period of detention, and they are unconstitutional.
  ICE has flouted this requirement for years, issuing detainers based 
on investigative interests alone; and these dragnet detainer issuances 
practices have caused the detention of countless people who were not 
criminal felons, felon aliens, who are not removable--even U.S. 
citizens in some cases.
  The Federal courts finally caught up with this practice and found 
them to be unconstitutional and are holding local agencies under civil 
liability for honoring detainer requests from ICE.
  In Colorado, for example, the Arapahoe County sheriff was forced to 
pay $30,000 to a victim of domestic violence who was, herself, arrested 
when she called the police for help. She was then held in the Arapahoe 
County jail at the request of Federal immigration authorities for 3 
days after a judge had ordered her release. Another case in Jefferson 
County Sheriff's Office was forced to settle for $40,000.
  Now, detainers are a form of communication and are therefore, in a 
reasonable reading of this proposed law, included. Effectively, you are 
presenting impossible choices to local law enforcement. You are telling 
them, on the one hand, subject yourself to civil liability or subject 
yourself to the cutting off of Federal grants to support your efforts.
  Either way, Mr. Speaker, it is a loss for the safety of American 
citizens and a loss for law enforcement, all because this body fails to 
own up to the fact that only we can fix the problem; only we can secure 
the border; only we can replace our immigration system with a 
comprehensive approach that makes sense and has the resources to 
enforce it, the Federal resources to enforcement.
  This isn't some theoretical matter that some intellectually curious 
law review cooked up. Jurisdictions in my district have been found 
civilly liable for enforcing detainers and been forced to pay. Lawsuits 
are being filed, and local law enforcement agencies that serve as 
proxies for ICE are losing.
  If you want to tell cities in my State to enforce unconstitutional 
policies, why not take on the liability federally? Will this body pay 
the settlement from the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office? Will this 
body pay the settlement of $30,000 from the Arapahoe County sheriff?
  The Republicans are making it clear that they don't have a plan to 
keep people like Kathryn Steinle safe. They don't have a plan to secure 
our borders. They don't have a plan to address our broken immigration 
system. This bill today is just another piece of evidence of this 
body's, this institution's failure to keep Americans safe.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to hit a couple of points here. It was 
stated by my friend from Colorado about the issue of San Francisco and 
pursuing individuals, such as this one who committed murder; and the 
fact is ICE did ask for him to be held. San Francisco made the choice 
to let him go, which is leading us to the issue today before us, and we 
want to continue.
  Also, this one assertion that this is a false solution debate--when 
is it a false solution to actually have to be here and discuss actually 
enforcing the law? I think that is exactly what we are doing here. If 
you choose to enforce the law, that is what your proper role should be, 
and if not, these are the penalties that will be put in place.
  I think we will continue this process, Mr. Speaker, and at this time, 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my distinguished colleague on the Rules 
Committee.

[[Page 12240]]


  Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule. This process 
is an absolutely outrage. I also rise in strong opposition to H.R. 
3009.
  Mr. Speaker, along with all of my colleagues and every American, my 
heart goes out to the family of Kathryn Steinle. The murder of any 
innocent person is a tragedy, and after each such heinous crime, we 
always ask ourselves: Could this have been avoided? Could we have done 
something differently?
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3009 paints itself as a remedy to Kathryn Steinle's 
death, but it does nothing--absolutely nothing--to address how to 
improve communication between our law enforcement, immigration, 
prosecutors, and penal institutions, nor does it improve the protocols 
and practices of how decisions are made on the release or transfer of a 
prisoner against whom ICE has lodged a detainer request.
  Instead, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3009 chose to penalize local law 
enforcement agencies and strip them of their Federal grants and funding 
when they prioritize working with immigrant communities in order to 
keep neighborhoods, cities, and towns safe.
  Republicans would rather demonize these cities and local law 
enforcement agencies and force them to squander scarce local resources 
on immigration enforcement, instead of local policing. In effect, Mr. 
Speaker, H.R. 3009 will make our cities and communities less safe, 
rather than more secure.
  This is why law enforcement and city governments oppose this bill. It 
deliberately and cynically undermines their ability to protect their 
communities, nurture public trust in the police and our legal system, 
and strengthen our public safety.
  H.R. 3009 is opposed by the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the 
Fraternal Order of Police, the National Criminal Justice Association, 
the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and 
the National League of Cities; all of them strongly oppose this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill reeks of prejudice. It isn't meant to solve 
any problem. It is meant to punish cities that don't embrace the views 
of anti-immigrant extremists. It is meant to demonize all immigrants as 
criminals.
  It means to punish any city, any police officer, any sheriff, and any 
cop on the beat who challenges the Republican anti-immigrant orthodoxy 
of ``hate them all'' and ``deport them all.'' Deport the DREAMers; 
deport the parents of U.S. citizens; deport children fleeing violence--
deport, deport, deport.
  Mr. Speaker, this House continues to wait and wait for the Republican 
majority to show some leadership and bring up a comprehensive 
immigration reform bill. It has been more than 2 years since the Senate 
passed a strong, bipartisan immigration reform bill; and we are still 
waiting for the House Republicans to act.
  What we need is a way to bring 11 million of our neighbors, friends, 
colleagues, small-business owners, and hard-working residents out of 
the shadows. Let them register, be documented, and not fear talking 
with the police. Let us recognize their achievements and contributions 
to the American way of life.
  This bill had no hearings, no markup, and no input from local law 
enforcement--no regular order. In fact, in the topsy-turvy world of the 
Republican House, the Judiciary Committee's Immigration and Border 
Security Subcommittee is holding its first hearing on this topic 
today--this morning--when this bill is already here on the House floor 
for debate and voted today.
  No, Mr. Speaker, this bill is just more of the same, old, divisive 
Republican anti-immigrant formula. America is better than this, and I 
urge my colleagues to reject this closed rule and to oppose the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise and just, again, part of this is really--and even 
if you look at the Administration's view on this bill and others, it is 
almost an Alice in Wonderland effect. What is up is down and down is 
up. We are looking at this, that enforcing the law hurts enforcement of 
the law and that it is backwards.
  Now, there are issues that need to be addressed. One of the issues is 
that we have a communication problem. I agree. We have got a 
communication problem. When they say, ``Hold him; he is going to be 
deported; he is deportable; he is not someone we want on our streets'' 
and San Francisco and other sanctuary cities choose to release him, 
that is a communication problem. I will agree with my friends across 
the aisle on that point.
  To say that punishing views--how about enforcing the law? The last 
time I sat in my law classes, we didn't enforce views; we enforced 
laws. I think that is what we are bringing up here.
  I can't let it pass. I talked about this before, and as a Member who 
believes that there are immigration issues that we need to address and 
as a member of the Judiciary Committee--which, by the way, has held 
hearings dealing with this subject--in fact, just last week, the 
Secretary of DHS was in. I questioned him directly about this, and it 
is amazing. He has no real opinion about sanctuary cities as he told me 
in his testimony.
  I find that rather amazing in that he would say that there would be a 
problem not enforcing these laws, and when I asked about other laws 
that we want to enforce--is it okay for cities to turn their back on 
those laws--there is not an opinion there.
  We have talked about this. We have had immigration hearings. We have 
begun the process of marking up legislation to secure our communities, 
to secure our borders, and to do those things; but before we start 
throwing in the nature of saying there is all wrong with the Republican 
majority on something that we have not done, I just want to go back and 
remind--I am still one who at the time was out there watching the 
proceedings from my home in the State of Georgia, where we were doing 
everything we could to balance the needs of our State and our economy 
during shutdown and during a depression, recession--whatever you want 
to call it--and we were trying to balance budgets, and we were watching 
this issue up here, but what I saw was that we are told today we are 
waiting for Republicans and the Republicans have all this bad agenda.
  At the same point, when this body was controlled by my friends across 
the aisle, when the other body across the way--the Senate--was 
controlled by my friends across the aisle, and when the administration 
was new and in their early stages of developing their strategy for 
solving all the world's problems, what they chose to do was wreck 
health care and to work against community bankers. They chose that.

                              {time}  1045

  They chose not to do comprehensive immigration reform. They chose to 
use it as a political issue and a political pawn. They chose not to 
bring this up.
  When you want to bring it up, let's shine the light brightly. Let's 
bring it up and shine the light brightly on both sides. The world was 
waiting. You managed to get a lot of other things through. You managed 
to do other things that you wanted to do, but you chose not to do this. 
You chose not to make this.
  My question here is simply: the bill that is being brought forward, 
it says enforce the law.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As the gentleman from Georgia might recall, when the Democrats 
controlled the Senate last session, they did pass comprehensive 
immigration reform with strong Republican and Democratic support. More 
than two-thirds of the body supported securing our borders, expelling 
felon immigrants, and keeping Americans safe. Had this body simply 
acted on that bill, as we repeatedly tried to get them to do, we quite 
likely would not be facing this tragedy that we face here today. Until 
this body acts, there are likely to be more victims, more American 
victims, of criminal immigrants.
  It is not the fault of the Democrats. We, with the Republicans in the 
Senate, put together a bill that would have

[[Page 12241]]

addressed it. It is the fault of this body, the House of 
Representatives, that failed to act.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a Statement of Administration 
Policy with regard to this bill, which includes that the President's 
senior advisers would recommend that he veto this bill. He then goes 
into some of the same arguments we have been talking about with regard 
to why we need to secure our border and grow our economy and make sure 
that we can fix our broken immigration system.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


          H.R. 3009--Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act

                 (Rep. Hunter, R-CA, and 44 cosponsors)

       The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3009. This bill 
     fails to offer comprehensive reforms needed to fix the 
     Nation's broken immigration laws, undermines current 
     Administration efforts to remove the most dangerous convicted 
     criminals and to work collaboratively with State and local 
     law enforcement agencies, and threatens the civil rights of 
     all Americans by authorizing State and local officials to 
     collect information regarding any private citizen's 
     immigration status, at any time, for any reason, and without 
     justification.
       The Administration continues to believe that it is critical 
     to fix the Nation's broken immigration system through 
     comprehensive commonsense legislation that builds on existing 
     efforts to strengthen border security, cracks down on 
     employers hiring undocumented workers, streamlines legal 
     immigration, and offers an earned path to citizenship for 
     undocumented immigrants to get right with the law if they 
     pass background checks, contribute to the Nation's economy by 
     paying taxes, and go to the back of the line. While the 
     Senate passed comprehensive legislation with strong 
     bipartisan support over two years ago that would do just 
     that, the House of Representatives failed to take any action. 
     According to the Congressional Budget Office, that 
     legislation would also grow the Nation's economy by 5.4 
     percent and reduce Federal deficits by nearly $850 billion 
     over 20 years. The Administration continues to urge the 
     Congress to address all of the problems with the Nation's 
     broken immigration system and take up commonsense legislation 
     that will offer meaningful solutions to those problems.
       The Administration also believes the most effective way to 
     enhance public safety is through sensible and effective 
     policies that focus enforcement resources on the most 
     significant public safety threats. The Administration has put 
     in place new enforcement priorities that do just that, 
     focusing limited resources on the worst offenders--national 
     security threats, convicted criminals, gang members, and 
     recent border crossers. The effectiveness of these new 
     priorities depends on collaboration between Federal, State, 
     and local law enforcement. Every day, the Federal government 
     fosters State and local collaboration through a variety of 
     mechanisms, including policies, programs, and joint task 
     forces. The Department of Homeland Security's Priority 
     Enforcement Program (PEP) enables Federal immigration 
     enforcement to work with State and local law enforcement to 
     take custody of individuals who are enforcement priorities, 
     including public safety and national security threats, before 
     those individuals are released into communities. PEP is a 
     balanced, commonsense approach to enforcing the Nation's 
     immigration laws. It replaced the Secure Communities program, 
     which, by establishing a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to 
     State and local cooperation with Federal immigration 
     enforcement officials, discouraged some localities from 
     turning over dangerous individuals to DHS custody. Secure 
     Communities was embroiled in litigation and widely criticized 
     for undermining State and local community policing efforts. 
     PEP builds collaboration between Federal, State, and local 
     law enforcement that allows for the most effective 
     enforcement while enhancing community policing and trust. The 
     Congress should give PEP a chance to work, instead of 
     displacing that collaborative approach--which prioritizes the 
     worst offenders--with the coercive approach of this bill, 
     which makes no such differentiation.
       Finally, the bill would condition Federal money on State 
     and local governments allowing their law enforcement 
     officials to gather citizenship and immigration status 
     information from any person at any time for any reason. The 
     Administration believes that such blanket authority would 
     threaten the civil rights of all Americans, lead to mistrust 
     between communities and State and local law enforcement 
     agencies, and impede efforts to safely, fairly, and 
     effectively enforce the Nation's immigration laws.
       If the President were presented with H.R. 3009, his senior 
     advisors would recommend that he veto this bill.

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the Donald Trump wing of the Republican 
Party is clearly ascendant here today. It is the dominant thinking 
among House Republicans.
  This is the same crowd that, just back in February, threatened the 
funding for Homeland Security because they were so eager to deport our 
DREAMers--young people who came here as children, who have cleared a 
criminal background check, who paid a fee and are already contributing 
to America--because whenever they are in doubt on immigration, they 
fade to the extreme right. These are the same Members of Congress who 
have even gone to court to sue the President of the United States when 
he prioritized the deportation of criminals over immigrant families; 
and these are the same Republicans who were so fearful of a sane 
discussion here, and this Congress, this House, is never a sanctuary of 
sanity when it comes to immigration.
  But they refuse to bring to the House floor a bipartisan bill 
unanimously approved in the Homeland Security Committee to deal with 
border security. If that weren't bad enough, they came back this year 
with a totally partisan border security bill, and they have been afraid 
to bring it to the floor because they do not want a reasoned discussion 
of immigration in this House of Representatives.
  Unfortunately, this Congress is also never a sanctuary from partisan 
political stunts designed to capitalize on the latest tragedy, like the 
tragedy that occurred in San Francisco. This bill is not about grabbing 
criminals; it is about grabbing headlines. It is not about a thoughtful 
debate of the best immigration and law enforcement policies for our 
country; it is about scoring political points. It does so by rejecting 
the expert opinion of sheriffs and police chiefs and law enforcement 
experts and organizations and local mayors and leaders in the municipal 
level across America who say that, to fight crime effectively, they 
need to win the trust of all of the communities that they serve.
  This bill is opposed by major law enforcement organizations, by 
municipal government organizations. I saw at the top of the list of 
those law enforcement organizations the police chief of my hometown, 
who works with community policing to make our communities safe. Some 
localities believe that they can better enforce the law, better keep 
our communities safe, if an undocumented person who is a witness or a 
victim of crime is involved with them and reporting those crimes and 
helping enforce the law.
  If I have to choose between Donald Trump and his extreme attitudes 
embodied by colleagues here in this House today and my local law 
enforcement about how to protect my family, all of our families, I 
choose law enforcement. Let's reject this bad bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. If they are so committed to supporting local law 
enforcement, eliminating funding for the COPS program is hardly the way 
to do it. We ought to be putting our dollars and our support and our 
immigration laws in conformity with the law enforcement experts across 
America and protect our families.
  Reject this bad bill, and then do something substantive to back our 
law enforcement officials.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I appreciate the argument, and this is why we have this time. But I 
do want to just remind again, from my previous statement, bringing up a 
bill last Congress reminds me of back when I used to coach kids in 
football. There was always that struggle you wanted to put as many kids 
in, you wanted everybody to play, and you still wanted to win the game. 
There was that balance that you always had.
  It reminds me of one time it happened to be one of my own kids. Now, 
that is pretty hard when you are coaching one of your own kids and you 
get to the end of the game and you didn't put him in like you thought 
you were going to because the time had run out on the game. And you go 
to him--fortunately, he was my son. I was driving home, and I said, ``I 
am sorry.'' I called

[[Page 12242]]

his name and I said, ``I am sorry I didn't get you into the game. The 
time had run out, but I had every intention of getting you into the 
game.'' That is about like saying last Congress when the Senate was 
Democrat but the House was Republican and we have different ideas and 
different views that we are bringing forward. I simply go back to the 
time when that did not exist, when time was still on the clock and they 
chose not to do anything.
  Also, it is a good distracter from what we are talking about today: 
cities enforcing laws, finding solutions, and doing so. That is simply 
what this bill does, that is what this rule provides for, and those are 
the things that need to be talked about. This is the discussion that 
needs to be had, and this is the discussion the American people are 
having all over, including, by the way, San Francisco, who is 
reevaluating their policy even now.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my House colleagues to stop and 
think for a moment and to oppose not only the rule, but the underlying 
bill. It is extreme, it is anti-immigrant, and it is really not about 
sanctuary cities.
  In fact, this flawed legislation actually second-guesses the 
decisions that are made by local police chiefs and sheriffs around the 
country on how best to police their communities and ensure public 
safety and ensure the kind of cooperation that they need in order for 
law enforcement to work properly.
  As the founder and former executive director of the National Network 
to End Domestic Violence, representing domestic violence organizations 
and coalitions around the country, I am deeply concerned that this 
legislation will have a negative effect on the cooperation that is 
necessary between law enforcement and isolated, very isolated victims 
of domestic and sexual violence. Furthermore, it would strip the 
bipartisan provisions that passed in the Violence Against Women Act 
when we just reauthorized it.
  Specifically, H.R. 3009 negatively amends section 241(i) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act by doing the following:
  It undermines the spirit and protections of VAWA, effectively pushing 
immigrant survivors and their children, many of whom are likely U.S. 
citizens, deeper and deeper into the shadows of danger.
  It undermines the policies that local communities have determined are 
appropriate for their localities to ensure that victims of crime come 
forward without fear of retribution.
  It allows violent crimes to go uninvestigated, and it leaves victims 
without redress because of reductions in funding.
  This bill would have damaging ramifications for families across the 
Nation and in my home State of Maryland.
  I enter into the Record a letter from the National Task Force to End 
Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, representing coalitions, 
organizations, shelters, services, and programs in every single State 
in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to just quote from this letter. It says: ``Fear 
of deportation also strengthens the ability of abusers and traffickers 
to silence and trap their victims. Not only are the individual victims 
harmed, but their fear of law enforcement leads many to abstain from 
reporting violent perpetrators or coming forward, and, as a result, 
dangerous criminals are not identified and go unpunished.''

         National Task Force To End Sexual and Domestic Violence 
           Against Women,
                                                    July 21, 2015.
       Dear Representative: As the Steering Committee of the 
     National Taskforce to End Sexual and Domestic Violence 
     (``NTF''), comprising national leadership organizations 
     advocating on behalf of sexual and domestic violence victims 
     and women's rights, we represent hundreds of organizations 
     across the country dedicated to ensuring all survivors of 
     violence receive the protections they deserve. For this 
     reason, we write to express our deep concerns about the 
     impact of the ``Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act'' 
     (H.R. 3009), which amends section 241(i) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act.
       As government officials, we ask you to approach this issue 
     from the perspective of a leader and be sure of the 
     implications this bill can have on entire communities. All 
     parties have the common goal of making communities safer. 
     This bill will encourage law enforcement to enforce 
     immigration law, and will significantly hinder the ability of 
     certain communities to build trust and cooperation between 
     vulnerable and isolated victims of domestic and sexual 
     violence and law enforcement. Last year marked the twentieth 
     anniversary of the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act 
     (``VAWA''), which has, since it was first enacted, included 
     critical protections for immigrant victims of domestic and 
     sexual violence. This bill undermines the spirit and 
     protections of VAWA and will have the effect of pushing 
     immigrant survivors and their children (many of whom are 
     likely U.S. Citizens) deeper into the shadows and into 
     danger.
       As recognized in VAWA, bipartisan legislation supporting 
     our nation's response to domestic and sexual violence and 
     stalking, immigrant victims of violent crimes are often 
     fearful of contacting law enforcement due to fear that they 
     will be deported. A recent and comprehensive survey shows 
     that 41 percent of Latinos believe that the primary reason 
     Latinos/as do not come forward is fear of deportation.
       Policies that minimize the intertwining of local law 
     enforcement with ICE help bring the most vulnerable victims 
     out of the shadows by creating trust between law enforcement 
     and the immigrant community, which in turn helps protect our 
     entire communities. Fear of deportation also strengthens the 
     ability of abusers and traffickers to silence and trap their 
     victims. Not only are the individual victims harmed, but 
     their fear of law enforcement leads many to abstain from 
     reporting violent perpetrators or coming forward, and, as a 
     result, dangerous criminals are not identified and go 
     unpunished. These criminals remain on the streets and 
     continue to be a danger to their communities.
       This bill undermines policies that local communities have 
     determined are appropriate for their localities, and decrease 
     the ability of law enforcement agencies to respond to violent 
     crimes and assist all (immigrant, citizens, etc.) victims of 
     crime. As recognized in VAWA, law enforcement plays a 
     critical role in our coordinated community response to 
     domestic and sexual violence. Federal law enforcement funding 
     supports critical training, equipment, and agency staffing 
     that assists domestic and sexual violence victims. H.R. 3009 
     will allow violent crimes to go uninvestigated and leave 
     victims without redress due to reductions in funding.
       For these reasons, we urge you to affirm the intent and 
     spirit of VAWA and oppose the provisions above. Thank you 
     very much for taking this important step to protect and 
     support immigrant survivors of domestic violence and sexual 
     assault.

  Ms. EDWARDS. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is not what we need to do. We 
need to ensure the continued protections of domestic violence victims 
all across this country, no matter who they are and no matter where 
they are, and to know that law enforcement will be there to protect 
them and their children.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The best way to address the problems in our immigration system, the 
best way to address the lack of security for American citizens, the 
best way to ensure that there are not others like Kathryn Steinle and 
others that have fallen victim to immigrant felons is to fix our broken 
immigration system, secure our borders. Only Congress can do that.
  Now, the President has taken the first steps to help keep Americans 
safe by suggesting certain policies like DACA and DAPA programs. Now, 
DACA is being implemented; DAPA is, unfortunately, tied up in the 
courts. What these efforts allow our law enforcement agencies to do is 
to focus their efforts on criminals like Mr. Lopez-Sanchez rather than 
violators of our civil law. It would be better if this body could put 
those concepts into statute or, better yet, make sure that we can 
differentiate between noncriminals and criminals within the law.
  An immigration reform bill would reduce the risk of tragedies like 
this and help keep Americans safe by helping law enforcement identify 
people who are here illegally, and it would bring people out of the 
shadows. Identifying the portion of our people that are here illegally 
that qualify for relief and for

[[Page 12243]]

prosecutorial discretion would help our law enforcement agencies narrow 
their focus and targets to individuals like Mr. Lopez-Sanchez.
  Immigration reform efforts like H.R. 15, which was the comprehensive 
bill from last Congress, would modernize our immigration agencies, 
increase enforcement and resources tools, technology, and border 
security to prevent tragedies like this from occurring. Doing the 
difficult work of having a meaningful debate around immigration reform 
is the only way we can ever be able to keep Americans safer and reduce 
the likelihood of this kind of incident.
  A vote for this particular bill won't do anything to address these 
systemic problems. Had this been the law, it would not have prevented 
this tragedy, nor does it do anything to address the problems plaguing 
our immigration system. Instead, it threatens and bullies local law 
enforcement and says to them, either expose yourself to civil 
liability--which is very real. My agencies in Colorado have been forced 
to pay--they have been forced to pay--$30,000 or $40,000. So pay legal 
fines, or we are going to cut your grants.
  Look, it is a natural tendency of people to pass the buck, and 
Congress is basically trying to pass the buck to local law enforcement 
for our failures here in this body.
  Mr. Lopez-Sanchez should not have been wandering the streets of San 
Francisco or any other American city. He should not have been allowed 
to illegally enter. In fact, he had been caught at the border four or 
five times, and he had snuck across other times.

                              {time}  1100

  We need real border security, and we need to finally enforce our law 
and get serious about restoring the rule of law, which this bill would 
only make an even bigger joke.
  Rather than restoring the rule of law and encouraging cooperation 
between Federal, State, and local authorities in cases that involve 
immigrant felons, this bill would punish local law enforcement for 
prioritizing public safety and community policing over trying to do the 
job that Congress and the Federal Government are supposed to do.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 3\3/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  It is time for this body to fix our broken immigration system to keep 
Americans safe. How many other victims like Kathryn Steinle need to 
make the ultimate sacrifice--or the countless other Americans who are 
victims of other kinds of crime--at the hands of immigrant felons? It 
will be until this body chooses to fix our broken immigration system 
and restore the rule of law.
  This particular bill would only further dissipate the rule of law. It 
tells local law enforcement you have to either pay fines that drain 
your ability to enforce our laws or you lose grants that reduce your 
ability to enforce our laws.
  Either way, if this bill were somehow to become law--even though the 
President has indicated he would veto it--it would drain away the very 
local law enforcement resources, the purpose of which is to keep 
Americans safe.
  Let us move forward to replace our broken immigration system with one 
that works, not try to pass the buck. Mr. Speaker, the buck can't be 
passed. It is the Federal Government's responsibility to secure our 
border and to establish immigration laws. It is the Federal 
Government's responsibility to deport criminals.
  No matter how this body may try to say that it should be cities and 
counties and sheriffs and police chiefs--who are trying to do the dirty 
work--who are the result of our failure to take action, they need to 
make the decisions that are in the best interests of keeping their 
communities safe.
  With 10 or 12 or 14 million people in our country illegally--some of 
them immigrant felons--we are passing along the buck to local law 
enforcement with an impossible task.
  Rather than make that task more impossible by forcing them to pay 
civil fines or to lose important law enforcement resources, let's help 
them have the resources and policies they need to deport felon 
immigrants before they can commit crimes like the tragedy that occurred 
in San Francisco.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, to oppose this bill, and to 
reject this bizarre approach that we are seeking here today, which 
would have done nothing to have prevented this tragedy or any other 
like it, and would lead to countless more tragedies by taking resources 
out of the hands of those who are on the front lines--on our streets, 
in our neighborhoods--keeping Americans safe.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  This is an interesting argument, as I stated before, because it 
really defies, in many ways, logic.
  The best way to help prevent what has just happened is to enforce the 
law. It is not to give a substantive, wishy-washy: Well, I won't 
enforce this. I don't want to enforce this. I am making a political 
judgment.
  In fact, that is really what the law should be there for, is to say: 
This is the law that has been passed through the political process, but 
this is the law for everyone.
  When you have the debates in Congress, that is what the political 
argument is for. I don't disagree with my friend from Colorado, as this 
is the part that we are supposed to debate; but once it leaves here and 
it is printed and it is law and it is signed, it is to be enforced.
  To really argue that, on this side, we don't want to enforce, and, on 
this side, we want to enforce, where does it end--when we don't want to 
enforce drug laws? trafficking laws? employment law? Where does it end?
  I am sure there are political differences in many cities, possibly in 
my own district of the Ninth District of Georgia, where cities say: I 
am not sure I like this employment law. I am not sure I like having to 
deal with compliance, with Federal law. We will just ignore it. No. It 
is about enforcement.
  Lopez-Sanchez was requested by ICE. Whether you are talking about 
limited resources or whether you are talking about a lot of resources, 
it doesn't matter. They requested him to be held.
  San Francisco said no. It is San Francisco's choice--their political 
choice, their life choice. It was a life choice for this young lady. 
Her life is gone.
  It is not an economic choice--it is a life choice--and their choice 
led to a life's being taken. It is not about whether you like the law 
or not, and it is not about whether you have a view on the law or not--
it is about whether you will enforce the law or not.
  I struggle with this as I understand about the interest of immigrant 
communities, and I understand about good policing. My father was a 
State trooper.
  I understand the relationship between communities and of their all 
working together to provide a safe community; but sanctuary cities are 
sanctuaries for those who abide by the law--those who are here legally, 
those who want to live a prosperous life and just get up and go to work 
and not have to worry about being shot on the street by somebody who is 
being sanctuaried because he is here illegally--not once but multiple 
times over.
  As has already been stated, this is not a judgment call. San 
Francisco could see this. They could see his record. They could see he 
had been detained for illegally entering. This is not something that 
was, frankly, even close. They chose.
  The question remains: Do we enforce or do we not? The question 
remains: Do we want to be under a rule of law or do we want to have 
something else?
  It has been brought up many times today of a bill in the last 
Congress that was passed by the Senate that would be the panacea for 
everything and probably would help this. That was the implication 
given.

[[Page 12244]]

  I have just one question to those who make that assertion: If San 
Francisco and other sanctuary cities won't enforce the law now because 
of their political views, what gives them any idea they would for a new 
law?
  We have got a fundamental problem here, Mr. Speaker. The fundamental 
problem is: Is political rule of law going to happen or is the rule of 
law going to happen?
  Pass any bill you want, but if we allow them to ignore it without 
consequence, then you have no standard, you have no basis for debate, 
you have no place to move forward.
  You can pass everything you want to and have the President sign it in 
beautiful ceremonies; but if we allow political subdivisions in this 
country to just continue to pick and choose, then we have got a 
problem.
  Now, if there are issues, let's solve them here. Let's have the 
debates--I agree--but this isn't up for debate when it leaves here.
  So pass whatever you want to pass. Will San Francisco enforce it? I 
don't know--maybe, maybe not--but when they released and when other 
sanctuary cities release them and say: We are not going to hold. We are 
not going to do these things, then they have made a choice. 
Unfortunately, in this case, they made a life choice, and that 
beautiful life is gone.
  This rule simply says enforce the law. This rule--this bill--says we 
have law. It is what we have got right now. It is not your aspirational 
goal. It is the law. Simply enforce it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. 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 will be postponed.

                          ____________________