[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12269-12281]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                ENFORCE THE LAW FOR SANCTUARY CITIES ACT

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 370, I 
call up 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, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). Pursuant to House Resolution 370, 
the bill is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3009

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Enforce the Law for 
     Sanctuary Cities Act''.

     SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN 
                   ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (SCAAP) FUNDING.

       Section 241(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1231(i)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(7) A State (or a political subdivision of a State) shall 
     not be eligible to enter into a contractual arrangement under 
     paragraph (1) if the State (or political subdivision)--
       ``(A) has in effect any law, policy, or procedure in 
     contravention of subsection (a) or (b) of section 642 of the 
     Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
     of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373); or
       ``(B) prohibits State or local law enforcement officials 
     from gathering information regarding the citizenship or 
     immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.''.

     SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON DOJ GRANT PROGRAMS.

       (a) COPS.--In the case of a State or unit of local 
     government that received a grant award under part Q of title 
     I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 3796dd et seq.), if, during a fiscal year, that 
     State or local government is a State or local government 
     described in subsection (c), the Attorney General shall 
     withhold all of the amount that would otherwise be awarded to 
     that State or unit of local government for the following 
     fiscal year.
       (b) Byrne-JAG.--In the case of a State or unit of local 
     government that received a grant award under subpart 1 of 
     part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.), if, during a 
     fiscal year, that State or unit of local government is 
     described in subsection (c), the Attorney General shall 
     withhold all of the amount that would otherwise be awarded to 
     that State or unit of local government for the following 
     fiscal year.
       (c) States and Local Governments Described.--A State or 
     unit of local government described in this subsection is any 
     State or local government that--
       (1) has in effect any law, policy, or procedure in 
     contravention of subsection (a) or (b) of section 642 of the 
     Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 
     of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373); or
       (2) prohibits State or local law enforcement officials from 
     gathering information regarding the citizenship or 
     immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) 
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include extraneous materials on H.R. 3009, currently 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I support H.R. 3009, the Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act, 
and commend Representative Hunter for introducing this legislation. It 
helps to address one of the main factors contributing to the collapse 
of immigration enforcement in the United States, ``sanctuary cities'' 
that prohibit their law enforcement officers from sharing information 
with Federal immigration authorities to enable the removal of unlawful 
and criminal aliens.
  Nearly 20 years ago, Congress realized that sanctuary cities were 
impeding the Federal Government from enforcing our immigration laws and 
jeopardizing the safety of our residents, immigrant and native-born 
alike.
  Legislation cowritten by former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
Lamar Smith, prohibited States and localities from becoming sanctuaries 
for unlawful aliens.
  The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 
1996 ensures that jurisdictions cannot prohibit or restrict government 
officials from sending to or receiving from Federal immigration 
authorities information regarding the immigration status of any person.
  Unfortunately, despite the proliferation of sanctuary jurisdictions, 
the Justice Department has never initiated a prosecution for violation 
of the 1996 act. If the administration won't act, Congress must, and 
that is what Mr. Hunter's bill does.
  It withholds key Federal law enforcement grants from sanctuary 
jurisdictions that violate the 1996 act. Enactment of Representative 
Hunter's legislation will help persuade sanctuary jurisdictions to 
simply abide by current Federal law and, in doing so, advance public 
safety.
  Representative Hunter's bill is an important first step, but there is 
much more we will need to do to rebuild immigration enforcement in the 
United States. Once jurisdictions notify DHS of arrested unlawful and 
criminal aliens, it is crucial that they hold these aliens for transfer 
so that DHS can launch removal proceedings.
  The Center for Immigration Studies has revealed that, in the first 8 
months of 2014, sanctuary cities refused to comply with DHS detainers 
for 8,145 aliens. After releasing these aliens, in only an 8-month 
period, 1,867 were arrested again for a criminal offense. Most 
recently, San Francisco's refusal to honor a DHS detainer resulted in 
the tragic death of Kathryn Steinle.
  This is why it is so important that jurisdictions honor DHS 
detainers. In fact, just this morning, we held a hearing in the 
Judiciary Committee where a representative from the Steinle family 
testified.
  The conclusion of the witnesses was that we need to make crystal 
clear that compliance with ICE detainers is mandatory; yet this 
administration openly proclaims that detainers can be ignored and has 
chosen to dramatically scale back their issuance.
  This administration has chosen to create enforcement-free zones for 
millions of unlawful and criminal aliens.

[[Page 12270]]

It has turned the U.S. into a sanctuary Nation. That is the current 
reality.
  Despite DHS' pledge to prioritize the removal of serious criminal 
aliens, in the last year, the number of administrative arrests by 
criminal aliens has fallen by a third. U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement continues to release thousands of criminal aliens onto our 
streets, 30,558 in 2014, of which another 1,423 have already been 
convicted of new crimes.
  There are almost 180,000 convicted criminal aliens currently in 
removal proceedings living in our neighborhoods and almost 170,000 
convicted aliens who have been ordered removed from the country also 
still living free and causing crimes on our streets.
  Under the Obama administration, the total number of convicted 
criminal aliens who are not being detained has jumped 28 percent since 
2012 to a total of nearly 350,000.
  We must prevent this or any other administration from being able to 
turn off the switch on immigration enforcement. Representative Gowdy, 
chairman of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, has 
offered us a way forward to ensure enforcement of our immigration laws, 
despite the purposeful inaction of any administration.
  His legislation, the Michael Davis, Jr. and Danny Oliver in Honor of 
State and Local Law Enforcement Act, allows States and localities to 
enact and enforce immigration laws of their own, as long as they are 
consistent with Federal law. Jurisdictions could proactively take 
responsibility for protecting their communities and ensuring the 
integrity of our immigration system.
  Today, we are making an important down payment on protecting our 
constituents, and I appreciate the majority leader's commitment to me 
that we will take additional action to ensure compliance with our 
immigration laws in the future.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3009, the Enforce the Law for 
Sanctuary Cities Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3009, the Enforce the Law for 
Sanctuary Cities Act.
  This thoroughly flawed measure is a blatant attempt by most of the 
majority to insert its anti-immigrant status agenda into local policing 
initiatives. It does this by prohibiting State and local governments 
from receiving critical criminal justice funds if they have policies 
that prioritize public safety and community policing over Federal 
immigration enforcement.
  The bill absolutely makes no sense because, rather than improving 
public safety, it will achieve the complete opposite; and that is not 
just my conclusion. Law enforcement agencies from across the United 
States and numerous organizations--such as the Major County Sheriffs 
Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Law Enforcement 
Immigration Task Force, the United States Conference of Mayors, and the 
National League of Cities--all oppose this bill.
  In effect, this bill would punish law enforcement officers by 
withholding the funds they need to do their jobs, and it would require 
States and localities to prioritize Federal immigration enforcement 
ahead of enhancing public safety.
  Reactionary proposals such as this legislation will only make our 
communities less safe because immigrants will not report crimes or 
otherwise cooperate with the police if they fear they or their family 
members may be asked for their immigration status. As a result, crimes 
will go unsolved and unpunished while criminals are free to victimize 
more people.
  In addition, withholding crucial United States Department of Justice 
funds from local communities will not lower crime. Studies have 
demonstrated that these programs, particularly the COPS and Byrne JAG 
funds, provide crucial support services to fight criminal activity, but 
a vote for H.R. 3009 is a vote to take these funds away and to risk 
making communities less safe.
  All of us, on both sides of the aisle, are opposed to violent crime. 
There is simply no debate about that. Not one of us would condone what 
happened to Kate Steinle in San Francisco, but H.R. 3009 is simply the 
wrong approach.
  I agree with the Major Cities Chiefs Association that the best way to 
reduce crime in their cities is to gain the community's trust and 
cooperation. I also believe that the majority of immigrants in this 
country are hard-working, law-abiding residents; and comprehensive 
immigration reform would allow these law-abiding individuals to come 
out of the shadows and get right with the law.
  Such legislative reform would enable Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement to focus its limited resources on deporting the worst 
elements, while ensuring that our entire community, citizens and 
immigrants alike, are protected from harm.
  Instead of considering this commonsense solution, the majority--most 
of them--have repeatedly voted to deport DREAMers; to deport the 
parents of United States citizens; and to deport vulnerable children 
from fleeing persecution, violence, and trafficking.
  Now, the majority, in the form of H.R. 3009, asks us to override the 
public safety mission of State and local enforcement agencies to 
increase deportations.
  I strenuously urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous 
legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter), the chief sponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, let me say to Chairman Goodlatte, thank 
you very much for your leadership on this and thanks for moving this so 
quickly. This is a timely bill, and I just want to thank you and your 
committee for moving it so quick.
  This legislation is about one thing. That is accountability. The 
American people have the right to not give their Federal tax dollars to 
municipalities and States that do not follow Federal law.
  There are lots of changes to enforcement that must be imposed on 
sanctuary cities, and we are going to work toward those things. This 
Republican Congress is going to work toward those things, just as we 
are putting in motion a mechanism today that holds sanctuary cities 
accountable.
  I think we can all agree that any locality must comply with the law, 
and they are required to coordinate and cooperate with the Federal 
Government. If an arrest is made, the Federal Government should be 
notified.
  The fact that San Francisco and L.A. and other cities disagree with 
the politics of Federal enforcement does not give them a free pass to 
subvert the law. If they do, there has to be consequences.
  The way that we impose consequences on these sanctuary cities is by 
hitting them where it hurts, and that is in their pocketbook. It is 
simple.
  If you don't comply with the law as it stands now, then you don't 
receive coveted Federal money intended for law enforcement. And that 
money allocated for fiscal year 2015 alone almost adds up to a billion 
dollars.
  $800 million are going to municipalities, cities, counties, and 
States that care more about illegal alien criminals, felons, than they 
do their own citizens. It is time we stand up to sanctuary cities and 
begin holding them accountable for their failure to uphold the law.
  I come as a representative that has sanctuary cities in my district. 
They are going to lose money for this. They are going to lose money 
because they are not complying with Federal law.
  This Federal money that they get is taxpayer money from States like 
Wisconsin, from New York, from South Carolina, from Florida, and 
throughout the entire country. People around this country don't want 
their money going to States and cities that don't care to follow the 
Federal law.
  Again, if you are a State, city, or locality and you choose to defy 
Federal immigration law, you will be cut off

[[Page 12271]]

from three Federal programs: the State Criminal Alien Assistance 
Program, the Community-Oriented Policing Services program, and the 
Byrne JAG program.
  These are the three funds that will get cut if you are a sanctuary 
city. All you have to do to receive these funds is comply with the 
Federal law.
  This bill is just the first step in restoring accountability in our 
immigration system. Our border infrastructure continues to fall short 
in too many places, and I am as frustrated as anyone in this Congress 
that the administration refuses to enforce Federal immigration law.
  These are all serious issues that need to be addressed, and I look 
forward to working with this Congress and Chairman Goodlatte in the 
future to advance these goals.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3009.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, we have an immigration system that is 
badly broken. There are 11 million undocumented people in this country. 
Contrary to what Donald Trump may think, the majority of these people 
are not rapists.
  They are hard-working people, spouses and parents of U.S. citizens, 
DREAMers, entrepreneurs who want an opportunity to come forward, submit 
to background checks, and become fully American.
  Faced with a broken system, State and local law enforcement have 
adopted policies to enhance public safety and maintain community trust.
  Because when people are afraid of the police, when they are afraid 
that the police might ask them or their family about their immigration 
status, they are afraid to report crimes, unlikely to cooperate with 
investigations, and then criminals thrive and the general public 
suffers.
  This bill puts an impossible choice between State and local law 
enforcement agencies. They can either abandon policies that work or 
they can lose the Federal funds they rely on to police their 
communities and protect them.
  The dangers posed by this bill are real. 144 national, State, and 
local advocacy organizations have written opposing this bill because of 
the detrimental impact it would have on public safety, big cities, but 
also little ones like Dayton, Ohio, a place that most people don't 
think of as a sanctuary city.
  In Dayton, police officers are told not to check immigration status 
of witnesses and victims, nor to ask about immigration during minor 
traffic stops.
  The police chief there has explained that this policy has helped them 
have a safer community. According to the chief, after the policy was 
adopted, serious violent crime dropped nearly 22 percent and serious 
property crime decreased almost 15 percent.
  Madam Speaker, why should Dayton, Ohio, be barred from receiving 
funds for policing when their policies work?
  Now, punishing the law enforcement officers by withholding the funds 
they need is not only incorrect, it is why the bill is opposed to by 
the Major County Sheriffs' Associations, the Fraternal Order of Police, 
dozens of sheriffs and police chiefs.
  The President has said we should deport felons, not families, and 
that is what his priority enforcement program does.
  The Secretary of Homeland Security told the Judiciary Committee just 
last week that withholding funds from communities would be a huge 
setback in efforts to improve the relationship between DHS, State, and 
local law enforcement in communities across the country.
  It has been said that this bill is a response to the tragic murder of 
Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco, just up the road from my district.
  However, nothing in this bill would have prevented that outrageous 
murder of Ms. Steinle. Nothing in the bill would have required the 
Bureau of Prisons and ICE to consult with San Francisco, to ascertain 
whether or not the 20-year-old warrant would lead to a prosecution.
  Nothing in this bill would have required ICE to obtain a warrant, as 
is necessary to hold people beyond the term of their criminal sentence.
  Nothing in the bill would even have affected the sheriff of San 
Francisco's decision to release the individual charged with murdering 
Ms. Steinle.
  So that tragedy should not be used to advance a different agenda, 
this bill.
  Over the last year we have come to the floor to vote on bills to 
deport the DREAM Act kids, to deport the parents of U.S. citizens, to 
deport vulnerable children fleeing persecution and sex trafficking.
  Today we are asked to vote on a bill that overrides the public safety 
mission of State and local law enforcement agencies and to increase 
deportations all around.
  We had the votes to pass comprehensive immigration reform in the last 
Congress, and I hope we can get back to that point.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I would note that we have an opportunity 
here to learn from the tragedy in San Francisco to come up with real 
solutions that would make our community safer instead of using that 
tragedy as an excuse to promote a different agenda.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to make very 
clear nothing in this bill requires any officer of the law to ask any 
question of any victims of crime about their immigration status.
  All it does is prohibit cities and counties from ordering their 
officers to not communicate with ICE or gather information from ICE 
about the status of individuals. This is a good bill.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the former 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the current chairman of the 
Science Committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, first of all, let me thank the 
gentleman from Virginia and a good friend and the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee for yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 3009, the Enforce the Law for Sanctuary 
City Act. The bill is appropriately named, since sanctuary cities 
violate current laws that require these jurisdictions to share 
information with Federal authorities about illegal immigrants who have 
been arrested.
  H.R. 3009 helps enforce an immigration bill I introduced several 
years ago that became law. This legislation withholds certain Federal 
funds from sanctuary jurisdictions that hide the immigration status of 
illegal immigrants charged with crimes. These reforms serve as a first 
step in keeping dangerous criminals off our streets and out of our 
neighborhoods.
  Sanctuary cities have increased under this administration, which has 
done nothing to discourage them.
  During only an 8-month period last year, sanctuary cities released 
almost 9,000 illegal immigrants charged with or convicted of serious 
crimes. One-quarter have already been arrested again for committing 
more crimes, like murder and sexual assault. When does it end?
  I don't understand how anyone could oppose enforcing immigration 
laws. The victims are not Democrats or Republicans. The victims are 
innocent Americans.
  Many of the crimes committed by illegal immigrants could have been 
prevented if the Obama administration had enforced immigration laws. 
Instead, it has chosen to ignore them and innocent Americans continue 
to pay a steep price.
  I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for authorizing 
this legislation, and I urge its approval.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3009, 
which would make communities across the country less safe from crime.
  This legislation would withhold needed Federal funding from cities 
that

[[Page 12272]]

prohibit their law enforcement authorities from collecting information 
on a person's immigration status or that have policies restricting the 
disclosure of this information to other governmental entities.
  Many cities, including New York, have made the reasonable 
determination that they will not question victims of crime or witnesses 
to a crime about their immigration status. They believe it is 
counterproductive to make them afraid to cooperate with law 
enforcement.
  But this bill says that we in Congress know better, and, in the name 
of protecting public safety, we will deny such cities the funds that 
they need to protect the public safety.
  Many cities think that their communities are safer when a victim of 
domestic violence feels comfortable asking the police for protection 
from their abuser without fear of deportation.
  They believe that witnesses to a murder ought to step forward and 
assist law enforcement in tracking down the perpetrator without fear 
that they will face consequences of their own if they step forward.
  They think that good policing depends on building trust with their 
residents and that striking fear among immigrants that they may be 
deported if they report a crime makes everyone less safe.
  Punishing residents of cities whose officials have made such 
decisions is both unfair and unwise. New York City alone could lose $57 
million under this legislation.
  This would not only punish the public officials who set these 
policies and the undocumented residents in their communities, but it 
would punish all innocent people who depend on these Federal resources 
to protect public safety.
  My heart is with the Steinle family, and we all share their outrage 
at Kate's senseless murder. But this bill and other attempts to punish 
so-called sanctuary cities would do nothing to address the issues that 
might have prevented her death.
  Instead of taking positive steps to improve communication between 
Federal, State, and local authorities, this bill simply demonizes 
immigrants and perpetuates the myth that they are more prone to commit 
a crime than is the native-born population.
  This legislation might fit comfortably in Donald Trump's campaign 
platform, but it has no business on the House floor.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I just want to make clear that the 
gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the committee, is wrong about 
this bill. He says it only prohibits States and localities from 
adopting policies about not communicating with ICE. This is not true.
  The bill also prohibits State and local law enforcement agencies from 
adopting policies directing their officers not to collect information 
about immigration status for the general public.
  Any individual, the bill says. So it doesn't state that State and 
local police must gather immigration status information for the Federal 
Government.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say again, 
nothing in the bill requires any officer to ask any question of any 
victim of crimes about their immigration status. All it does is 
prohibit cities and counties from ordering their officers to not 
communicate with ICE or to gather the information status of 
individuals.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I appreciate this bill coming to the 
floor.
  I hear this discussion, and it seems to me there is a consistent 
theme that the people on the other side of the aisle are opposed to 
bringing leverage to political subdivisions to bring about law 
enforcement. They assert that nothing in this bill could have prevented 
the tragic murder of Kate Steinle.
  I would suggest that if we had no sanctuary jurisdictions in America, 
there is a lot greater chance that his deportation would have stuck; 
and if we had a President of the United States who worked to get our 
law enforcement officers to coordinate at each level of our political 
subdivisions rather than litigate when they do mirror Federal law, 
likely we would have had a chance to prevent not only her tragic death 
but that of thousands and thousands of others.
  I support this bill. It is encompassed within an amendment that I 
brought to the floor here on June 3 that passed with 227 votes. I 
congratulate Duncan Hunter for his persistence on this legislation that 
is 6 years long. I am grateful to be working on an immigration issue 
with the second generation of Hunters.
  I see there is much more enforcement that is ahead of us, but this is 
a step, and it is a step that helps us find out are people for a thread 
of enforcement and bringing some leverage to try to bring the political 
subdivisions in line rather than having them flout the law, which they 
have consistently done, and it has grown dramatically under the Obama 
administration.
  I would add that there is much more that I would like to do, much 
more to do. I would like to move Kate's Law. Matt Salmon has brought 
some of that. I would like to make it incremental so it goes from a 5-
year mandatory to a 10-year mandatory on second offense and move it up 
the line. I would like to make E-Verify mandatory. I would like to pass 
the New IDEA Act so the IRS can help enforce this. I would like to 
build a fence, a wall, and a fence, Madam Speaker, and I would like to 
repass the border bill that we did last summer. There are a number of 
good things.
  By the way, we need to make detainers mandatory, and we need to 
tighten up the loophole language. All of that we have a chance to do 
after Labor Day. Today we need to do what we can do, and that is pass 
this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
this misguided legislation offered under the false pretense that it has 
something to do with the tragic murder of Kathryn Steinle in San 
Francisco. Make no mistake, Miss Steinle's killer should not have been 
on the streets. We must get to the bottom of the official misjudgment 
and negligence and the bureaucratic breakdown that led to this tragedy.
  As the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of 
the Committee on Appropriations, I take a backseat to no one when it 
comes to deporting dangerous criminal aliens who pose a threat to 
public safety. But we also need to be very clear about this: this 
tragedy has nothing to do with so-called sanctuary cities.
  The bill before us would punish some of the most vulnerable cities 
high on the UASI list--places like San Francisco, New York, Miami, 
Chicago--punish them for exercising their lawful discretion in dealing 
with noncriminals or those with minor violations. They do this in order 
to protect the public and enforce the law, which requires trust and 
cooperation with immigrant communities. To scapegoat entire cities and 
make law enforcement less effective through this bill is simply 
inexcusable.
  I urge its defeat.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to the 
gentleman from North Carolina, this bill has everything to do with what 
happened in San Francisco. The tragic murder of Kate Steinle was 
because the city of San Francisco was not following the law and 
contacting the immigration service and doing things to make sure that 
he was deported. Instead, they released him back onto their streets.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill, in 
support of American families.

[[Page 12273]]

  This week, we have heard powerful and heartbreaking stories from 
families who have lost a loved one at the hands of an illegal 
immigrant. Oftentimes, these individuals were able to operate freely 
because of the sanctuary policies of certain U.S. cities, policies that 
ignore Federal immigration law.
  It is time this Congress put the lives and welfare of American 
citizens and legal residents first. It is time to protect the innocent. 
This means not another Kate, Josh, Dennis, Danny, Grant, and countless 
others. It is time to penalize cities that willfully ignore Federal law 
to the detriment of citizens and legal residents.
  I encourage my fellow Members to read the testimony from this week's 
Senate hearing. Read about the lives lost, the brutality of the crimes, 
the lack of remorse by the perpetrators, and the heartbreak of the 
families. Today we have a choice: protect fellow Americans or give 
sanctuary to criminal aliens.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), an excellent member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, just a few weeks into his campaign and 
Donald Trump has a bill on the floor of the House. That is better than 
some of the Senators he is running against. Donald Trump announces his 
campaign, saying Mexican immigrants are mostly murderers, drug dealers, 
and rapists. What is the response from the Republican Party? Do they 
denounce him? No, they only denounce people when they go after war 
heroes who ran for President. I denounce him for that, too.
  Some tried to distance themselves from his comments. Okay. But here 
we are on the floor of the House passing a bill to jump on the Trump 
bandwagon, cynically exploiting a family's tragedy in San Francisco to 
score political points.
  I have been very clear from day one, despite efforts to spear me by 
hard-line advocates, that the person, this Lopez-Sanchez, who pulled 
the trigger in San Francisco should have been deported and never turned 
over. I have no sympathy for him. I have said it on this floor, and I 
will say it again today: murderers should rot in hell.
  The breakdown by the Federal Government--the Federal Government--to 
deport a known criminal, as they have done before, to keep them in 
jail, is what led to an American woman losing her life. She was just 
about the age of my daughters when she was killed. A tragedy, and a 
preventable tragedy, if the Federal Government had done what it is 
supposed to do, and preventable if this Congress had done what it was 
supposed to do and address immigration years ago, as my side of the 
aisle has been pleading for you to do.
  But this Republican proposal is not a serious attempt at fixing the 
problem. Instead of piecemeal measures aimed at maximizing deportation, 
the long overdue solution is for Congress to enact comprehensive 
immigration reform that combines smart enforcement at the border and in 
the interior with a clear plan for reducing the size of the 
undocumented population in America.
  We do this by having a modern visa system so people can come with 
visas and background checks, not with smugglers or overstaying visas 
and just blending in. We do this by telling millions of people who have 
never committed crimes: Come forward; admit you are here illegally; go 
through a background check; and work your way to the right side of the 
law. Get the millions of immigrants inside the system and on the books 
so they no longer need to worry about their local police working with 
or without the deportation system.
  If you get millions and millions of immigrants inside the law, then 
the ones who are criminals can't qualify to get inside the law. They 
will stick out like sore thumbs, not blend in to our communities across 
America and cause havoc, as they did in San Francisco.
  But this is very specifically the approach the Republican majority 
refused to touch with a 10-foot pole because they see demagogues like 
Donald Trump.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. But this approach of bringing millions and millions of 
immigrants inside the law so that we can get after the criminals that 
stick out like sore thumbs outside of the law, this approach is what 
has been the approach that the Republican majority refuses to touch 
with a 10-foot pole because they see demagogues like Donald Trump 
firing up frustrated voters and want to take the easy way out.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Salmon).
  Mr. SALMON. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague Duncan 
Hunter for working with me in crafting this important piece of 
legislation. As the coauthor of this bill, I am very proud to see the 
House taking action on this front. I also want to thank leadership for 
bringing this bill to the floor.
  We are hearing some strange rhetoric here today, especially from the 
other side of the aisle. I hear about vulnerable cities. How about 
vulnerable taxpaying Americans? I hear about sanctuary for thugs like 
the one that killed Kate Steinle. Shouldn't our cities be a sanctuary 
for law-abiding American citizens who have a right to walk on safe 
streets?
  Make no mistake, this is a very, very important bill. From 2010 to 
2014, the number 121 should stick in everybody's minds; 121 illegal 
immigrants with lengthy criminal records went on to commit murder after 
they were let out to do their heinous crimes.
  That is why I was so appalled to hear one of my colleagues from 
across the aisle call the murder of American citizens like Kate Steinle 
and my constituent, Grant Ronnebeck, a little thing. Such disgusting 
remarks and flagrant disregard for life, especially the lives of those 
that we claim to represent, I find repulsive. In fact, such callous 
remarks only serve to highlight the fact that it is time for the 
majority of Americans who want to see government fulfill its most basic 
constitutional duties, protecting its borders and its citizens, stand 
up and take America back. It is time to stand up and be heard and 
demand that our government fulfill these most basic duties.
  These sanctuary cities that refuse to uphold the law and openly 
broadcast the fact that they are flouting the law make our country less 
safe and only serve to perpetuate tragedies like the one that we saw in 
San Francisco. Not only are these supposed sanctuary cities ignoring 
the law, but they are broadcasting the fact to illegal immigrant felons 
like Kate Steinle's murderer, a seven-time felon who flat out admitted 
one of the reasons that he chose to stay in San Francisco--in fact, the 
predominant reason he chose to stay--was because he knew that they 
would protect him.
  Well, who is going to protect law-abiding Americans? When will 
American cities be sanctuaries for Americans and not for illegal 
felons?
  Unfortunately, these sanctuary cities are not being held accountable 
by this administration, which has demonstrated time and time again it 
has no interest in securing the border or upholding existing 
immigration law. With this in mind, I think that we have a 
responsibility to stand up and do what is right. This sanctuary cities 
policy and fixing it so that they have to abide by the laws that we 
pass here in Congress to protect our borders and protect our citizens 
has to be adhered to. It is just common sense.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to 
Representative Lofgren and ask unanimous consent that she be permitted 
to control the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. O'Rourke).
  Mr. O'ROURKE. Madam Speaker, I would like to bring the perspective of

[[Page 12274]]

my community, the community I have the honor of representing in 
Congress, El Paso, Texas, to bear in this discussion.
  El Paso is the safest community with an over 500,000 population in 
the United States today, and it has been for the last 4 years in a row. 
That is, some people think, despite the fact that it is connected to 
Ciudad Juarez at the U.S.-Mexico border and despite the fact that it 
has a large number of immigrants in the community. I say, and the 
people who live in that community agree with me, that it is, in large 
part, because of immigrants who come to participate and contribute to 
the American Dream.

                              {time}  1500

  On issues and matters of law enforcement, I tend to defer to the 
experts. Big city police chiefs and county sheriffs, like the sheriff 
in El Paso, Texas, say for them to prevent crime and solve crimes, it 
is necessary to be able to work with everyone in the community without 
fear that they are going to be enforcing Federal law enforcement 
mandates to the exclusion of the public safety of the people that I 
have the honor of representing.
  For that reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against 
this proposal, a solution in search of a problem.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say, yet 
again, nothing in this bill requires any officer to ask any question of 
any victims of crime about their immigration status. All it does is 
prohibit cities and counties from ordering their officers not to 
communicate with ICE or to gather information status about individuals.
  It is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for 
so consistently working on this issue of how we deal with the criminal 
illegal alien population and also with the sanctuary cities.
  I thank Mr. Hunter for the work that he has done on this bill. I 
chuckled when Congressman King and the gentleman from Iowa mentioned 
the second generation of Hunters because, yes, we do know that his 
father was very involved in this issue and focusing on making certain 
that we keep our cities safe.
  As we have this debate and as we look at these sanctuary city 
policies that certain counties and cities and State have exercised, we 
have come to realize that through the years, every State has become a 
border State and every town a border town because of the criminal 
illegal alien population that will gravitate to these sanctuary cities.
  Los Angeles was the first sanctuary city in 1979. We hear people say, 
Oh, this is an issue that has been around for a long time. Mr. Speaker, 
that does not mean you do not address the issue. It means you solve the 
problem; you bring forward solutions, and that is what we are doing 
here today.
  The U.S. Sentencing Commission recently released some data that I 
think is instructive to this debate. Illegal aliens accounted for 
almost 75 percent of Federal sentencing for drug possession and made up 
more than a third of all Federal sentences in 2014. That is why we are 
dealing with this issue.
  Our constituents are saying, You need to put this on a front burner 
and deal with this issue. That is what we are doing here. Look at the 
State of Texas. I just recently read the stats from them.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Byrne). The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. In Texas, the department of public safety released a 
report that, between 2008 and 2014, foreign aliens committed over 
600,000 crimes and almost 3,000 murders in the State of Texas. That is 
the reason that we come here to address this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, the crime rate for illegal aliens in this country should 
be zero. It should be zero because it should not be tolerated.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  The man who killed Kathryn Steinle should be punished to the fullest 
extent of the law. Perhaps more importantly, the officials who released 
the person who killed her--released this man from custody--dropped the 
ball, they should be held accountable.
  This bill punishes the police in my city of Los Angeles, the police 
in the city of Knoxville, and the police in Manchester, New Hampshire. 
It punishes police that had nothing to do with the crime that occurred 
in San Francisco. It takes away money from the police departments in 
Los Angeles, in Knoxville, and Manchester, when we need to put people 
and police on the street to protect all of us.
  This would deprive our cities of monies we have earned because we 
paid our taxes. Why? It is because the proponents of this bill say that 
our cities are violating the law. If we are violating the law, name the 
law we are violating. We are not violating any law. You just don't like 
the policy.
  Don't take the Donald Trump bait. Don't punish others for the crimes 
of someone else. In our country, you go after the person who is 
criminally liable; you go after that individual and lock them up 
forever, but don't tell the police in Los Angeles, Manchester, or in 
Knoxville, Tennessee, or other cities that are trying to have a working 
relationship between their police and growing immigrant communities 
that they won't be able to collaborate so we can go after the 
criminals--because that is what you are doing.
  You are taking money away from L.A., even though this crime did not 
happen in my city, and you are telling my police department and the men 
and women in uniform in L.A. that they will have fewer officers by 
their side because you are going to take money away because you don't 
like that some guy committed a criminal act. He killed someone; he 
should be punished for it, but we had nothing to do with it. Go after 
the folks that are accountable.
  This is not the way we do justice in America, and it is wrong. It is 
wrong for you to tell all these communities who have a working 
relationship between their police officers and their growing immigrant 
communities that they are now going to lose funds to hire more police 
officers. That is the wrong way to do it.
  That is the Donald Trump bait. Don't take it. Let's vote this down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded that their remarks must 
be directed to the Chair.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to 
the gentleman from California to tell him that the law that sanctuary 
cities are violating is title 8, section 1373 of the United States 
Code, communication between government agencies and the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service.
  The failure to do that has resulted in 8,000 criminal aliens being 
released onto our streets just last year by sanctuary cities. Those 
8,000 criminal aliens have since then already committed nearly 1,900 
additional crimes. This is about not just San Francisco, but other 
States as well.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Enforce 
the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act because we have got to stop the 
madness of not enforcing our laws.
  In the last weeks, we have seen coverage of two terrible murders that 
occurred because our laws went unenforced. My thoughts, prayers, and 
condolences go out to the families of the victims. Sadly, these 
tragedies are but a representation of a larger, deeper, and more 
troubling problem.
  While I wish today we were also considering legislation by Mr. Gowdy 
to address the administration's abysmal lack of respect for our 
immigration laws, Chairman McCaul's bill to secure the borders, or 
Chairman Lamar Smith's bill to implement E-Verify to stop businesses 
from exploiting undocumented workers, this bill is a step

[[Page 12275]]

in the right direction. It will stop the American people from 
subsidizing local law enforcement departments that refuse to do their 
jobs and enforce the law.
  Let's take the emotion out of this. Let's take it out of the 
immigration and border security issue, which are emotionally charged. 
This is a fiscally responsible bill. If we were spending money for a 
defense contractor to develop a new weapons system and they weren't 
developing that weapons system, we would take the money back.
  Well, here we are, giving money to law enforcement to work with ICE 
to deal with criminal aliens, and they are not doing it. Of course, we 
have got to take the money back. It would be foolish to do anything 
else.
  Mr. Speaker, this horrible loss of life that we have seen is a result 
of the negligence and complete lack of respect for the rule of law that 
this administration and the mayors of sanctuary cities took an oath to 
uphold. It is appalling. Today, we are going to be able to deal with 
one part of that problem, and I am going to encourage all of my 
colleagues to vote with me to support H.R. 3009 and put our Nation back 
on the path to sanity.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 9\3/4\ 
remaining. The gentleman from Virginia has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, we have only one additional speaker, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Community trust policies result in more efficient policing. When 
State and local law enforcement agencies promote community trust 
policies, public safety is increased.
  The current New York police commissioner and former chief of police 
in Los Angeles, William Bratton, said: ``When officers can speak freely 
with victims and witnesses, it goes a long way towards making every 
American neighborhood much safer.''
  Here is a case study in New Haven, Connecticut. According to a 2010 
report by the Police Executive Research Forum, New Haven, Connecticut, 
developed a community trust policy in which New Haven police assured 
immigrant communities that the police department's goals were to 
address crime and to make the streets safer.
  They encouraged people to report crime and to cooperate, regardless 
of their immigration status. The city law prohibited immigration status 
inquiries of crime victims, witnesses, or others who approached police 
for assistance.
  I would note that the bill before us would prohibit this policy, this 
law that New Haven adopted. The result of New Haven's policy and their 
other community trust policies were stronger ties between law 
enforcement and the immigrant community. Over the next several years, 
New Haven experienced a 46 percent decrease in murders and a 13 percent 
decrease in rape incidences. This policy, which this bill would 
prohibit, worked.
  This was a very important result. After learning of it, the United 
States Conference of Mayors, a group that most of us trust pretty much, 
did a survey of cities around the United States who adopted the same 
trust policies.
  They include Alameda, California; Augusta, Georgia; New Brunswick, 
New Jersey; and a whole host of others. They found that all of these 
cities also reported the same kind of reduction in crime after they 
adopted these policies. Adopting these policies is an important 
component of keeping communities safe, and this bill would prohibit 
that. It would prohibit it.
  Now, I understand the outrage over Mr. Lopez-Sanchez. In fact, I 
share it. Obviously, he has been accused of murder. Even when we have a 
situation like this, we have to have a trial, but I believe personally 
that he is guilty, based on all the evidence.
  I believe he should not have been out on that street in San 
Francisco. If you look at his record--and I will go through it a little 
bit--it actually makes certain points. I have heard people say, Well, 
we have got open borders, and that is why he was here.
  In fact, that is not the case. This individual attempted to enter the 
United States repeatedly, and he was caught by the Border Patrol, just 
as they are supposed to do their job.
  What happened then is he was deported repeatedly in the nineties, and 
then they started prosecuting him for felony reentry after removal. He 
served 16 years in Federal prison for the felony of reentering after 
removal.
  Our laws went after him. He should not have been released in San 
Francisco, but I think some of what we need to do is see what policies 
would have kept him off that street, and I will deal with those later.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I took a look at the statute, the code section that the chairman 
cited as the authority that a law has been violated by San Francisco.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  The gentleman will direct his remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I will direct my remarks to the Chair.
  May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if any of my time has been consumed as a 
result of the Chair's interruptions of my remarks?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It has not.
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee made a statement that the 
law that had been violated by San Francisco, and the law that would be 
violated by places like Los Angeles that would cause this legislation 
to have my community of Los Angeles lose money for its police officers 
was a particular section in the code.

                              {time}  1515

  I have read the code. I am looking it up right now. That section 
relates to information being provided about the immigration status of 
an individual. We are not talking about the immigration status of an 
individual. We all knew that this individual was not documented. We 
knew his status. The information that was not conveyed in this 
particular case is that the individual is going to be released from 
custody. This bill doesn't change that.
  There was no law violated by the city of San Francisco. Certainly, my 
city of Los Angeles didn't violate any law. The city of Knoxville, 
Tennessee, didn't violate any law. The city of Manchester, New 
Hampshire didn't violate any law. And I could name to you any number of 
other cities and towns in America who are trying to establish working 
relationships with their immigrant community who did not violate any 
law. But this bill would punish all those cities and towns simply 
because this legislation wishes to extract punishment for any city that 
has established a policy working with its immigrant community.
  There is no State or city law in America that supersedes Federal law. 
Federal law is the law of the land. The chairman knows that. We all 
know that. And so, to pretend that somehow cities are violating Federal 
law is a farce. It is the sort of attack that Donald Trump is using 
right now as he goes out and campaigns for President.
  We should not fall for that, and we should not deny our police 
departments funding because of a policy that some people don't like.
  I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to close by posing some of the questions that this bill 
does not deal with and that I think should command our attention.
  In this case, we had an individual who had a criminal record. He had 
attempted to enter the United States, was apprehended, deported, was 
prosecuted and convicted for illegal entry after removal. After serving 
over 4 years for the last felony prosecution, he was ready to be 
deported, but they found, even though he had been deported many times 
before with an outstanding bench warrant from 1995

[[Page 12276]]

where the underlying offense was marijuana possession, all of a sudden, 
this year, he was sent to San Francisco.
  I think one of the questions we need to ask is: What is the process 
of outstanding warrants and its interface with the Bureau of Prisons 
when someone really should be deported?
  Apparently, there was no communication between the Federal Government 
and the prosecuting attorney in San Francisco. He was sent to, 
apparently, San Francisco, but the district attorney did not see this 
matter until he was already in custody.
  Now, I don't fault the district attorney for not prosecuting on a 20-
year-old marijuana possession case. Where would you find the witnesses? 
And, in fact, in California today, marijuana possession is an 
infraction, not a misdemeanor. But the point is he should never have 
been in San Francisco to begin with.
  So I think we need to take a look at the processes that we have to 
make sure that we don't have this kind of situation again. Clearly, he 
should not have been released when the district attorney declined to 
prosecute.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from California (Mr. 
Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I represent many small communities in 
California that have a lot of gang violence. It is mostly Hispanic 
young men against Hispanic young men. They are not undocumented. They 
are actually second-generation gangs, a lot of killings. In fact, it is 
labeled the murder capital of the world, or in the United States.
  What the community has been trying to do is work out what we call 
community policing, where you really trust the cops. What happens is 
they asked them to be a sanctuary city, because what the local cops 
didn't like about the INS and la migra coming in is that they would 
just come in and do raids and they would round up innocent people, and 
there was just lots of confusion. Our office would get involved trying 
to trace people down, where are they, and all these things.
  What the sanctuary city says is, look, let's not just turn over the 
name to everybody we stop on an infraction to the Federal cop. Let them 
come down and do what they call jail checks. Well, they don't want to 
do jail checks. That is not fun and fancy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. LOFGREN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. FARR. The problem is that this community policing, the problem is 
this bill just busts all that, all the trust that has been built.
  As Congresswoman Lofgren said, the San Francisco deal was a big 
screwup between law enforcement. But don't penalize all these other 
cities that are doing a lot of wonderful things to do community 
policing and lead to confidence in law enforcement, not disconfidence.
  You are going to create more problems than you ever imagined, like 
people not wanting to report crimes, not wanting to talk to cops, and 
you are just using the heavy hand of government to bust good community 
relations.
  I just think this is the wrong way to do it. Let's let this thing air 
out and address the problems that Congresswoman Lofgren talked about 
and not adopt this bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to 
both gentlemen from California.
  First, with regard to Mr. Becerra, the fact of the matter is that 
title 8 of the United States Code, section 1373, related to 
communication between government agencies and Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, is an important statute, and sanctuary cities 
violate that statute when they pass ordinances that prohibit--
prohibit--their law enforcement officers from communicating with the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service.
  This yields situations like what occurred in San Francisco, because 
the sheriff there has a policy saying they could not communicate with 
the INS. Already, one San Francisco supervisor has called upon the city 
to change the policy so that they will communicate.
  This bill, which cuts off funds to cities that have provisions that 
contradict and violate the United States law does the same thing by a 
different route, and it will save many lives in the future if local law 
enforcement will communicate with the INS.
  Now, to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), I just want to 
repeat again what I have said several times here.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
  There is nothing in this bill that requires any officer to ask any 
question of any victims of crimes about their immigration status or to 
reveal that information to the INS.
  So I would urge folks to look at what this bill, very 
straightforward, simple bill says. Federal law governs immigration 
policy, and local governments shouldn't have hundreds of different 
immigration policies of their own.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I 
would just close by saying that we have been asked by law enforcement 
agencies, by domestic violence advocacy groups, by the faith community 
not to adopt this bill. I know we can come together to make a safer 
community. This bill is not the answer, and I urge Members to vote 
``no.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 6\1/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), the chairman of the 
Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, to close our debate.
  Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte for his 
leadership on this and so many other issues of significance on the 
Judiciary Committee. His steady hand and brilliant legal mind are 
without equal on our committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the family of Kate Steinle for the 
grace that they have shown during this time of unspeakable grief.
  Burying a child, Mr. Speaker, is what each of us who has ever been 
called Mom or Dad fears the most. After Trayvon Martin was killed, the 
President said, ``That could have been my son,'' Mr. Speaker.
  And when I see a picture of a beautiful Kate Steinle smiling, that 
could have been any of our daughters. And it still can be, because what 
happened to her, Mr. Speaker, can and will happen again if we do not 
get serious about enforcing the law.
  Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, Mr. Speaker, had a quarter century's 
worth of lawlessness. Dating back to 1991, he committed local, State, 
and Federal crimes in five separate States, I hasten to add, Mr. 
Speaker. He was deported five times, and each time had so little regard 
for the law of this country that he reentered that border that we are 
supposed to have functional control over.
  His procedural history, Mr. Speaker, is every bit as disturbing. In 
May of 2011, this defendant was convicted and sentenced to 46 months 
imprisonment for illegal reentry again. At the conclusion of that 
sentence, he was released from the Bureau of Prisons to a known 
sanctuary jurisdiction for the ostensible prosecution of an old drug 
case.
  Of course, Mr. Speaker, San Francisco did not prosecute that old drug 
case. They dismissed it, which surprises exactly no one, and then they 
released this defendant.
  They did not return him to the Bureau of Prisons. They did not return 
him to Federal probation. They did not honor the detainer that had been 
placed by ICE. They released him, who was not supposed to be in the 
country in the first place, with this horrific criminal history. They 
released him so he would be free to walk around and shoot someone's 
daughter, which is exactly what he did.
  Mr. Speaker, we are given a litany of excuses. I have heard them this 
morning, Mr. Speaker, for policies like this. We are told that we need 
policies like the one in San Francisco so people will cooperate with 
law enforcement.

[[Page 12277]]

  I want you, Mr. Speaker, to consider just how utterly illogical that 
comment is. We need to release known criminals back into society so 
society will help us catch known criminals. How absurd is that, that we 
are going to release people that should be deported, that are 
recidivist felons, so other people will help us catch those who should 
be deported and are recidivist felons?
  For almost 5 years, Mr. Speaker, I have worked alongside Chairman 
Goodlatte, and I have heard a litany of phrases, with almost catatonic 
frequency, as if repeating something enough will make it true--phrases, 
Mr. Speaker, like ``functional control over the border''--but I have 
yet to hear how somebody can reenter five times if you have functional 
control over the border.
  I have heard we need citizenship for 11 million undocumented aspiring 
Americans, as if 11 million of any category can pass a background 
check.
  I have heard arguments against empowering State and local law 
enforcement to assist in the enforcement of our immigration laws, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Now, stop and think. We trust them to do murder cases, sex assault 
cases, kidnapping cases, narcotics trafficking. You even trust them to 
provide security, Mr. Speaker, at their own functions back in the 
district. But when it comes to immigration law, oh, no. No, sir. We 
don't trust you to enforce immigration law. Everything else, including 
our own security both here in Washington and back in the district, but 
God forbid we trust State and local cops to help us with immigration 
law.
  The President says we need immigration reform so folks will, to use 
his words, Mr. Speaker, come forward, get on the books, get right with 
the law.
  I want you to ask yourself, what in Mr. Lopez-Sanchez' background 
makes you think he would ever come forward? And why in the hell does he 
need to be on the books? He is in the Bureau of Prisons. You don't need 
him on the books. He is in the Bureau of Prisons. And you had him, and 
you let him go.

                              {time}  1530

  Which brings me to my favorite phrase, Mr. Speaker, ``sanctuary 
cities.'' It has almost a Utopian sound to it, doesn't it?
  Well, as the Speaker knows, the definition of a ``sanctuary'' is a 
place of refuge or safety. And my question for folks in San Francisco 
and my colleagues who support this policy is: A refuge for whom? A 
sanctuary for whom? A refuge for Kate Steinle? A sanctuary for Kate 
Steinle? A refuge for a convicted felon with a 25-year-long criminal 
history?
  So the phrase sounds benign, but it was no sanctuary for her. It may 
have been for him, but it sure as hell wasn't for her.
  Mr. Speaker, my message to San Francisco would be simple: You won't 
honor our detainers, we won't honor your warrants. If detainers are too 
much trouble for you to handle, perhaps Federal money will be too much 
trouble for you to handle, too. If you can't honor our detainers, you 
are not going to get any more money.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns about 
the Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act. I am completely appalled 
by the tragic and senseless death of Kathryn Steinle and those 
responsible should be held fully accountable. Dangerous criminals, 
including those who are in the United States illegally, should not ever 
be released into the community.
  However, H.R. 3009 does not address this problem. In fact, if H.R. 
3009 becomes law it will only make it more difficult for law 
enforcement agencies to prevent future tragedies like this one. The 
system failed to catch this felon, not because of our nation's 
immigration policy, but because there was a breakdown in communication 
between agencies. The suspect, who has confessed to the shooting, has 
seven prior felony convictions, and has been deported five times, was 
apprehended by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and 
turned over to the custody of the San Francisco Sheriff's Department at 
its request on an outstanding drug warrant. ICE issued a detainer, 
requesting to be notified before the suspect's release. Unfortunately, 
the suspect was released back onto the streets after the prosecutor 
declined to pursue the drug charges.
  This individual should never have been released from the custody of 
law enforcement, and the events that followed reflect a systemic 
failure on the part of local law enforcement and prosecutors. And while 
I believe that Congress has a moral responsibility to prevent future 
tragedies like this from occurring in the future, this legislation 
falls far short in addressing any of the failings in our immigration 
system that led to it. If enacted, H.R. 3009 would not have required 
local law enforcement to certify that the suspect would be prosecuted 
before taking custody of him. Nor would it have required the Bureau of 
Prisons or ICE to consult with local law enforcement or prosecutors to 
determine whether justice would be better served by having the suspect 
deported rather than being transferred to face an unlikely prosecution 
for a 20-year-old drug possession charge.
  H.R. 3009 purports to address this tragedy by stripping local law 
enforcement agencies of necessary federal funding to fulfill its 
responsibilities to the public. More specifically, the legislation 
would strip funding for state criminal alien assistance programs. 
Instead of aiding local law enforcement, this bill would cripple the 
efforts of these agencies to support federal law enforcement. In a 
naked attempt to score political points, this legislation deliberately 
ignores and neglects the roots of the tragedy. As such, a wide 
coalition of groups oppose H.R. 3009, including the Major County 
Sherriff's Association, the National Fraternal Order of Police, the Law 
Enforcement Immigration Task Force, the National League of Cities, the 
U.S. Conference of Mayors, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, ACLU, LULAC, and LCCHR. 
While I remain committed to substantive and constructive reform of our 
nation's immigration system, this legislation falls far short of what 
is necessary.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on 
the Judiciary and on Homeland Security, I rise in strong opposition to 
H.R. 3009, the so-called ``Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act.''
  I oppose this legislation because it undermines public safety, fails 
to address needed immigration reform, promotes a deportation-only 
approach, and will not achieve the Republican leadership's stated 
purpose in bringing the bill to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, nothing in H.R. 3009 would have prevented the tragic 
killing of an innocent young woman in San Francisco.
  Instead, this bill is being rushed to the floor for the sole purpose 
of exploiting that tragedy by scapegoating immigrants and undocumented 
persons, holding them responsible for the actions of one person, and 
avoiding action on comprehensive immigration reform.
  It is undisputable that victims of murder deserve justice.
  H.R. 3009 the ``Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act'' would push 
undocumented immigrants further into the shadows and create and an 
environment with heightened threats to our safety and ability to seek 
justice.
  Stripping state and local law enforcement agencies of key funding and 
resources impedes their ability to combat crime and protect our 
communities.
  Surely, House Republicans do not want to tie the hands of law 
enforcement when it comes to preventing and investigating criminal 
acts.
  Rather than taking positive steps to promote better cooperation and 
communication between Federal, State and local authorities, where 
appropriate, H.R. 3009 punishes State and local law enforcement 
agencies that prioritize public safety and community policing over 
immigration enforcement efforts.
  Nearly every major law enforcement association in the country, from 
the Major Cities Chiefs Associations, the Major Counties Sheriffs 
Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the Law Enforcement 
Immigration Task Force, opposes H.R. 3009 and the host of other similar 
and related proposals set forth by Republicans.
  H.R. 3009 simply spreads the myth that all immigrants are criminals 
and threats to the public--despite decades of research that demonstrate 
the fact that immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes than 
native-born persons and are less likely to end up in prison.
  In fact, thousands immigrant populations throughout the country have 
resided within our country for decades as law-abiding, tax-paying, 
hard-working model persons who contribute to our nation's economy and 
culture of diversity and inclusiveness.
  Additionally, thousands of immigrant populations are actually here 
seeking safety and refuge because they too are victims of horrific 
abuse, torture and massacre that plagues their native countries.

[[Page 12278]]

  Yet, once again we are discussing measures that simply seek to 
enhance and promote mass criminalization, racial profiling and 
discrimination, and deportation of immigrants.
  In just this past year, House Republicans have voted to:
  1. Deport hundreds of thousands of Dreamers who came to the country 
as children and are American in all but name;
  2. Deport millions of parents of US citizens who are playing by the 
rules, contributing to their communities and working to support their 
families; and
  3. Deport without due process tens of thousands of unaccompanied 
children who came to the US fleeing persecution, extreme violence and 
trafficking.
  Just this past Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit 
issued an opinion dismissing immunity claims by ICE Agents who 
unlawfully detained an American citizen.
  A U.S. citizen who was born in Guatemala and has resided here since 
the 1980s and was naturalized in 1995, was subjected to multiple ICE 
detainers in violation of her Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.
  On at least two occasions the plaintiff was detained by ICE and 
questioned about her citizenship--despite her repeated claims and 
assertion of her legal status.
  No efforts were made to confirm or investigate prior to her detention 
by ICE which allowed her to be booked, strip-searched and held in jail 
for up to 48-hours.
  ``Detain first, question later'' practices and policies should not be 
supported--yet H.R. 3009 penalizes law enforcement for refusing to 
gather information about one's citizenship or immigration status where 
such actions are unwarranted.
  President Obama issued a statement today advising that H.R. 3009 will 
get vetoed if presented to him for signature.
  It cannot be said that immigration reform is being taken seriously, 
when proposals are rushed and fail to go through regular order.
  Serious reform requires bringing to the floor for debate a 
comprehensive immigration bill that reforms our broken immigration 
system by making it fairer and more humane, and secures our Northern, 
Southern, and maritime borders and our ports.
  The House Homeland Security Committee proved this can be done last 
year when it reported out of committee on a unanimous vote, H.R. 1417, 
the Border Security Results Act of 2014.
  Instead of wasting time on legislation that is designed to attract 
publicity rather than have any realistic chance of becoming law, we 
should be bringing to the floor for debate legislation that will 
address the real problems and challenges facing the American people.
  Instead of squandering valuable floor time on this irresponsible 
legislation, the House should be allowed to work its will on issues 
that matter, like raising the minimum wage, protecting the right to 
vote of all Americans, and passing criminal justice reform that builds 
trust and respect between law enforcement agencies and the communities 
they are to protect and serve.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3009, 
the so-called ``Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act.''
  This misguided legislation is purportedly a response to the 
heartbreaking and tragic shooting of Kathryn Steinle earlier this 
month. However, the reality is that this legislation cynically uses 
this isolated incident to scapegoat all undocumented immigrants and 
undermine community policing. Specifically, H.R. 3009 would withhold 
critical funding for State and local law enforcement agencies as well 
as victims of crimes unless these jurisdictions bear the burden of 
enforcing Federal immigration statutes.
  If passed, this bill would tie the hands of local law enforcement 
agencies who are working to promote safety and build community trust. 
Requiring local police to enforce Federal immigration laws often times 
dissuades undocumented individuals from reporting crimes, offering 
testimony, and serving as witnesses in court proceedings. For example, 
the evidence shows that victims of domestic violence will be afraid to 
report these crimes to police for fear of deportation. A survey 
conducted by the National Domestic Violence Hotline in 2013 found that 
nearly 50-percent of foreign born individuals were afraid to seek help 
because of their immigrant status. As Secretary of Homeland Security 
Jeh Johnson testified earlier this month, ``mandating through 
legislation the conduct of sheriffs and police chiefs'' is not the way 
to go.
  Instead of pushing these failed policies, we need to come together 
and pass bipartisan legislation to address our broken immigration 
system. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to HR 
3009. First and foremost, my heartfelt sympathies go out to the Steinle 
family for the loss of their daughter, Kate. There is no question that 
her death is tragic and unjust.
  However, this bill neither avenges her death nor effectively prevents 
similar tragedies from happening in the future. Absent comprehensive 
immigration reform, we are forcing local police to act as federal 
immigration officials. That is wrong, wrong, wrong.
  I represent one of the largest agriculture districts in CA that is 
dependent on migrant workers who toil the fields to feed our nation. We 
also have a significant gang violence problem in ``the Salad Bowl of 
the World'', yet, I am not aware that any of our local law enforcement 
officials think this bill is a good idea.
  In some of the harshest neighborhoods, our local law enforcement 
officials have established satellite facilities and programs for the 
kids in the neighborhood that provide alternatives to joining gangs. 
This type of 21st Century Policing encourages community partnerships, 
problem-solving and organizational transformation.
  Mr. Speaker, we have already seen the willingness of the Republicans 
to shut down the government over immigration issues by failing to fund 
the Department of Homeland Security for 4 months. While compromising 
the safety of our communities and the effectiveness of our local police 
might be good for Donald Trump, it is bad for America.
  I urge a no vote.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, the recent killing of Kathryn Steinle 
in San Francisco is a tragedy, and my thoughts are with her family 
during this very difficult time.
  Unfortunately, the Majority has chosen to politicize this tragedy by 
bringing this misguided and unacceptable bill to the floor.
  H.R. 3009 would withhold Department of Justice grants specifically 
targeted to enhance public safety, support community policing, and 
assist crime victims from states and law enforcement agencies that do 
not collect information regarding a person's immigration status.
  We can and should ensure that serious criminals who are dangerous and 
enforcement priorities for ICE are not released from the custody of 
local law enforcement. However, it is misguided and counterproductive 
to force local law enforcement officers to inquire about a person's 
immigration status at any time and for any reason in order to be 
eligible to receive critical public safety funding.
  It is also wrong and irresponsible that this bill misrepresents the 
immigrant community as one comprised entirely of criminals. In fact, 
decades of research show that immigrants are less likely to commit 
serious crimes than native-born persons.
  Earlier this year, many Republicans insisted that our Homeland 
Security Appropriations bill include anti-immigrant riders, and 
threatened to shut down the Department of Homeland Security if they did 
not get their way. Sadly, H.R. 3009 is just more of the same from the 
Majority, who apparently think it is more important to incite hatred of 
our immigrant population for political purposes than it is to keep our 
communities safe and secure.
  If we truly want to deal with our broken immigration system, we must 
pass comprehensive immigration reform that treats immigrants humanely, 
focuses on deporting those who threaten our safety and national 
security, and better secures our borders. Unfortunately, the House 
Majority has no interest in passing such reforms and instead chooses to 
rob local law enforcement of the money they need to keep our 
constituents safe from harm.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3009, the 
Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act.
  The murder of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco was a senseless 
tragedy. My heart continues to go out to her family and friends at this 
difficult time.
  As a nation, we cannot base complex policy decisions regarding the 
intersection of our federal immigration system and local law 
enforcement on a single tragic event.
  Sanctuary Cities exist because municipalities across the country 
recognized that they had to act to keep families together as 
Congressional Republican leadership refused to move forward on 
bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform.
  These are some of the most populous cities in the country--New York, 
Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston--and the list goes on.
  Our local law enforcement agencies are not trained immigration 
agents, nor should they be.
  This conversation comes at a time in this country when many local law 
enforcement agencies are facing a crisis of trust with the communities 
they are sworn to protect and serve.
  To threaten their federal funding based on local decisions about how 
best to serve their

[[Page 12279]]

communities, as H.R. 3009, would do, is not only misguided but 
dangerous.
  Instead, my colleagues should be working to pass bipartisan 
legislation to fix our broken immigration system and address these 
longstanding issues in a comprehensive and thoughtful way.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 370, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. JEFFRIES. I am opposed to it in its current form.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Jeffries moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3009 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary, with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith, with the following 
     amendment:
       Add at the end the following:

     SEC.__. PROTECTING LOCAL COMMUNITIES FROM CUTS TO LAW 
                   ENFORCEMENT.

       The Attorney General may not reduce or eliminate, under 
     this Act or the amendment made by this Act, any sums provided 
     to a State (or a political subdivision of a State) if the 
     Attorney General determines that such reduction or 
     elimination would result in--
       (1) an increase in the overall crime rate in that State or 
     political subdivision, including an increase in domestic 
     violence, sex trafficking, or crimes against children; or
       (2) a decrease in the number of trained law enforcement 
     officers in that State or political subdivision, including 
     community police, that are available to protect the public.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, 
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, 
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
  The murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco was a national tragedy 
that certainly shocked the conscience of America. We must continue to 
mourn her passing. We must continue to stand behind her family.
  We must continue to make sure that her killer is prosecuted to the 
full extent of the law, but we should not respond with irresponsible 
public policy.
  Our Founders indicated that the House of Representatives is supposed 
to reflect the passions of the people, but the passions should be 
properly channeled into an appropriate legislative vehicle.
  On December 14, 2012, 20 children were brutally gunned down in Sandy 
Hook Elementary School. More than 30,000 additional Americans have died 
as a result of gun violence since that fateful day. Mr. Speaker, 952 
days have passed. This House has done nothing.
  On June 27, 2013, the Senate passed a bipartisan comprehensive 
immigration reform bill, 52 Democrats, 14 Republicans, 2 Independents. 
That bill would have secured our borders. That bill would have reduced 
the deficit by more than $850 billion over 20 years. That bill would 
have required undocumented immigrants to learn English, pay back taxes, 
pass a criminal background check, and then get at the back of the line. 
Mr. Speaker, 757 days have passed. This House has done nothing.
  Instead, we are here today considering a misguided legislative 
response to a terrible tragedy. That is why I offer this amendment, 
which will prevent the elimination or reduction of funds to State or 
local law enforcement organizations if the Attorney General determines 
that the elimination of funding would result in an overall increase in 
the crime rate, particularly with respect to domestic violence, sex 
trafficking, and crimes against children, or if it would result in a 
decrease in the number of trained law enforcement officers on American 
streets.
  The COPS and Byrne-JAG programs are essential to public safety and 
should not be used as a blunt force weapon to carry out a reckless and 
irresponsible antiimmigrant agenda. That is why the National Fraternal 
Order of Police, the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, and the 
Major County Sheriffs' Association of America all oppose the underlying 
legislation.
  In a letter dated July 15, the National Fraternal Order of Police 
expressed their ``strong opposition to any amendment or piece of 
legislation that would penalize law enforcement agencies by withholding 
Federal funding or resources from law enforcement assistance programs 
in an effort to coerce a policy change in so-called sanctuary cities.''
  In offering this amendment, I stand with law enforcement. In offering 
this amendment, I stand with the Statue of Liberty that sits in New 
York Harbor with the inscription ``Give me your tired, your poor, your 
huddled masses yearning to breathe free.''
  In offering this amendment, I stand with the United States 
Constitution and the 10th Amendment limitation on the Federal 
Government's ability to commandeer State or local police authorities 
into the service of Federal areas of enforcement.
  In offering this amendment, I stand with the Scripture in Matthew 
25:35, where it says: I was hungry, and you gave me food. I was 
thirsty, and you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you welcomed me.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation of the point of order is 
withdrawn.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
motion to recommit. It would give the discretion to the Attorney 
General of the United States and the ability to determine whether or 
not such reductions provided in this legislation would take place.
  This is the same Attorney General of the United States who is new to 
the position, but has already indicated her unwillingness to enforce 
title VIII, section 1373, of the United States Code related to the 
requirement that cities and all other government agencies communicate 
with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
  The Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act helps to address one of 
the main factors contributing to the collapse of immigration 
enforcement in the United States.
  Hundreds of sanctuary cities are violating Federal law by prohibiting 
their law enforcement officers from sharing information with Federal 
immigration authorities to enable the removal of unlawful and criminal 
aliens.
  This bill will finally establish penalties to persuade these 
jurisdictions to comply with longstanding Federal law.
  Sanctuary cities present a clear and present danger to their 
citizens. In the first 8 months of 2014, they released 8,145 aliens who 
the Department of Homeland Security wanted to deport.
  Very quickly, almost a quarter of these aliens were arrested again 
for new criminal offenses. Most recently, San Francisco's refusal to 
honor a DHS detainer resulted in the tragic death of Kate Steinle.
  This is not an isolated incident. This is something that will 
continue again and again and again unless these cities start 
cooperating with law enforcement.
  And, yes, there are many other things that need to be done to protect 
American citizens from unlawful criminal aliens besides this bill. 
Those should be brought to the floor as well.
  But this bill represents an important first step in making rogue 
jurisdictions comply with Federal law and safeguard their communities. 
We will take further steps in the months ahead to ensure enforcement of 
immigration laws, but we have to start today.
  Federal grants--and there are three categories of grants covered by 
this

[[Page 12280]]

legislation--are not entitlements to the States. They are gratuities 
that Congress has chosen to give to the States.
  The Supreme Court has held that Congress can place restrictions or 
conditions on the receipt of Federal funds to further policies that are 
aimed at protecting the general welfare.
  I support these law enforcement grants, but the solution to potential 
loss of these funds is simple: eliminate the policies that violate 
Federal law, eliminate the policies that prohibit information sharing 
with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, and they will 
receive this funding. They will also receive safer communities, 
communities that are sanctuaries for law-abiding citizens, not 
sanctuaries for criminals.
  This legislation must be passed to protect American citizens and do 
right by them and do it in honor of people like Kate Steinle, who gave 
her life because of these bad policies.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit, support this 
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, and the question on 
agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 181, 
nays 239, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 465]

                               YEAS--181

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--239

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bishop (UT)
     Brady (PA)
     Carter (TX)
     Clawson (FL)
     Collins (NY)
     Denham
     Hinojosa
     Israel
     Kaptur
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Schakowsky
     Speier
     Stewart

                              {time}  1607

  Messrs. CONAWAY, FINCHER, STIVERS, and JOHNSON of Ohio changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. GABBARD and Mr. SHERMAN changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241, 
noes 179, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 466]

                               AYES--241

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bera
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)

[[Page 12281]]


     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--179

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bishop (UT)
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Calvert
     Carter (TX)
     Clawson (FL)
     Conyers
     Hinojosa
     Israel
     Kaptur
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Speier
     Stewart

                              {time}  1619

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 466, I was unable to vote due 
to a malfunction of my voting card. Had I been able to vote, I would 
have voted yes on rollcall 466.

                          ____________________