[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10037-10056]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3003, NO SANCTUARY FOR CRIMINALS 
                                  ACT

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 414 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 414

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3003) to 
     amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to modify 
     provisions relating to assistance by States, and political 
     subdivision of States, in the enforcement of Federal 
     immigration laws, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against provisions 
     in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include extraneous material on House Resolution 414, 
currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to bring this 
rule forward on behalf of the Rules Committee.
  The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary 
for Criminals Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally 
divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary 
Committee. The rule also provides for a motion to recommit.
  Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from my 
fellow Judiciary Committee members Mr. Johnson of Louisiana and Ms. 
Lofgren of California.
  H.R. 3003 received consideration by the Judiciary Committee as part 
of a larger bill, the Michael Davis, Jr. and Danny Oliver in Honor of 
State and Local Law Enforcement Act. That legislation was marked up and 
ordered reported by the Judiciary Committee on May 24.
  As a cosponsor and strong advocate of the Davis-Oliver Act, I 
supported the passage of legislation before the full House. Today we 
have the opportunity to move an important piece of that bill forward 
and to strengthen our policies against jurisdictions that flout 
America's laws.
  Mr. Speaker, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act is just simply common 
sense. John Adams said that we are a government of laws, not of men. As 
we approach the Fourth of July week, we recognize that America's 
foundation is that of the rule of law. Yet too often we have seen local 
jurisdictions ignore Federal immigration law and declare themselves 
sanctuary cities, as though their actions have no consequences for 
their law-abiding neighbors.
  The reality, however, is that the localities that refuse to enforce 
Federal immigration law undermine public safety and break the 
democratic contract. Mr. Speaker, the sanctuary cities do not act in a 
vacuum. They endanger lives and set dangerous precedent.

                              {time}  1230

  To many people, it would seem obvious that local and State law 
enforcement should comply with Federal immigration laws and cooperate 
with its fair enforcement by communicating openly with Federal 
officials. It would also seem clear that jurisdictions that ignore 
these laws should forfeit the Federal funds set aside to support 
compliance with those same laws.
  Despite this, sanctuary cities oppose Federal immigration officials 
routinely. These men and women find themselves handicapped by local 
officials implementing obstructionist policies.
  In light of this, Mr. Speaker, I believe we need to better protect 
our communities by ensuring our laws are followed. H.R. 3003 takes 
steps do that.
  I thank Chairman Goodlatte, Congressman King, and Congressman Biggs 
for their work on the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act. These Members are 
colleagues of mine on the Judiciary Committee, and they recognize the 
need to respond to the continuing problem of sanctuary cities with 
resolve, with confidence that Federal immigration laws safeguard every 
American community and apply equally to every American community.
  The underlying bill provided for by this rule also includes 
legislation offered by Mr. King--Sarah's and Grant's Law. Sarah's and 
Grant's Law is named after two individuals, Sarah Root and Grant 
Ronnebeck, who were tragically killed by unlawful immigrants. The 
unlawful immigrants were released and remain at large, and the Root and 
Ronnebeck families were left to grieve unspeakable losses while the 
lawlessness continues.
  It is past time for us to take action to combat dangerous sanctuary 
policies. We are a nation of laws and we need to act like it.
  While there is no uniform definition of sanctuary cities, and no 
comprehensive or official list of these jurisdictions, we have, 
regrettably, become all too familiar with them. So-called sanctuary 
cities are those jurisdictions that obstruct immigration enforcement 
through noncompliance with detainers. They construct unreasonable 
hurdles to compliance and create barriers to communication between 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and local personnel.
  We understand that ICE has a job to do and that its officers took 
oaths to uphold those duties. Opponents will claim that this bill is 
unnecessary because ICE has the jurisdiction it needs. The truth is, 
sanctuary policies make the ICE agents' jobs more difficult, more 
dangerous, and endanger communities.
  While the previous administration frequently flouted immigration laws 
and, for far too long, took a rain check on holding sanctuary cities 
accountable, even former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh 
Johnson agreed that sanctuary cities shouldn't simply be allowed to 
decline to cooperate with Federal Government authorities. In fact, he 
said in 2015 that it is ``not acceptable to have no policy of 
cooperation with immigration enforcement.''

[[Page 10038]]

  Mr. Speaker, faithfulness to the law isn't like being offered a cup 
of coffee. You can't look at the Federal statutes and say: You know, no 
thanks, but I appreciate you offering.
  H.R. 3003 confirms that this option is not on the table.
  While I agree with former Secretary Johnson that we must have a 
policy of cooperation, the policies of the former administration too 
frequently didn't indicate a commitment to that goal. In fact, State 
and local jurisdictions ignored more than 12,000 Federal detainer 
requests in 2014.
  Now is the time for action.
  Thankfully, President Trump issued an executive order directing the 
Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and ICE to 
ensure that sanctuary jurisdictions are ineligible for Federal grants 
and are subject to enforcement actions. The President also charged 
these agencies with reporting on jurisdictions that have refused to 
comply with detainers to hold criminal aliens.
  The first week this report was issued, it showed 206 known instances 
in which local personnel declined ICE detainers and released criminal 
aliens. These aliens reentered the communities after they had committed 
crimes such as assault, aggravated assault or battery, driving under 
the influence, or domestic violence abuses.
  The reports indicate that we have work to do, but it helps us by 
identifying jurisdictions where personnel are thwarting Federal law. It 
throws into relief the glaring problem of sanctuary cities and provides 
information that law enforcement and lawmakers can use as we assess the 
problem and develop meaningful solutions.
  Mr. Speaker, I was in the Georgia State House when we took action 
there to address the issue of sanctuary cities. In 2009, we in Georgia 
outlawed sanctuary cities in our State. Last year, the legislature went 
further by requiring local governments to certify their cooperation 
with immigration officials in order to receive State funds.
  Today we have a chance to take a step in a positive direction on the 
Federal level.
  The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act prohibits States and localities 
from implementing policies that restrict law enforcement agencies from 
cooperating with immigration laws and officials. It gives teeth to that 
restriction by tying eligibility for certain Department of Justice and 
Homeland Security grants to State and local compliance with existing 
immigration laws.
  The bill requires that there will be probable cause before ICE can 
issue a detainer, and focuses on grant programs reasonably related to 
the scope of the bill.
  Importantly, this bill also calls for aliens to be detained if the 
alien is engaged in a crime that caused death or serious injury to 
another person. Had this provision been law at the time, it could have 
helped prevent what happened in the heartbreaking death of Sarah Root, 
where an alien who caused her death was freed on bond and remains at 
large.
  The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act also takes the commonsense step of 
allowing DHS to withhold aliens rather than transferring them to 
sanctuary jurisdictions, even if the jurisdiction has a warrant. It 
simply doesn't make sense for DHS to transfer aliens who are removable 
under the law to jurisdictions that are looking for opportunities to 
let them go.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot talk about holding sanctuary cities accountable 
by strengthening our laws without mentioning the work of Chairman John 
Culberson.
  In 2016, Chairman Culberson successfully convinced the Department of 
Justice to update guidelines in order to disqualify sanctuary cities 
from receiving DOJ grant money should they be found in violation of 
title 8 U.S. Code, section 1373.
  Attorney General Sessions has reiterated that Federal law enforcement 
grants are contingent on compliance with existing law, and that the DOJ 
will deny fiscal year 2017 grant funds to jurisdictions that have 
refused to share information regarding illegal aliens in their custody.
  Chairman Culberson's efforts made clear that State and local law 
enforcement agencies are expected to work with Federal law enforcement 
agencies on immigration matters. Through his diligent work, meaningful 
steps have been taken to restore accountability.
  The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act builds on these efforts and 
ensures that jurisdictions comply with the detainers while 
strengthening our law to ensure that aliens who have been committing 
crimes such as drunk driving are detained pending their removal.
  H.R. 3003 permits the Secretary of DHS to issue a detainer for any 
individual arrested for violation of a criminal or motor vehicle law 
upon probable cause that an individual is an inadmissible or deportable 
alien.
  In this critically important step, the bill grants immunity to State 
and local entities for compliance with any detainer.
  Jurisdictions that want to act in good faith and follow the law 
should be able to cooperate without being held liable for their 
compliance. The protections provided in this bill are a major step 
forward to effective enforcement.
  Finally, this bill gives victims and their families a private right 
of action against a State and local government whose noncompliance and 
release of an alien results in a murder, rape, or serious injury of the 
victim. This measure, were it law, would have allowed Kate Steinle's 
family to sue after her tragic murder at the hands of a criminal and 
unlawful immigrant.
  Sanctuary cities and jurisdictions ignore the law. They do it at the 
expense of the American people. Our citizens surely deserve better. 
They deserve to live in communities that don't let dangerous criminals 
back out into the streets. They deserve to see the law upheld rather 
than ignored. Law-abiding citizens deserve to see individuals who break 
our laws--not only by entering and residing in our country illegally, 
but by committing crimes once here--to be removed.
  This rule provides for the consideration of legislation to strengthen 
the rule of law and to protect our neighbors and communities.
  It demands that jurisdictions comply with our Nation's immigration 
laws and enforcement or face penalties.
  Today we can take action to turn off the spigot of Federal funds to 
those jurisdictions that obstruct ICE efforts at the expense of 
Americans. We demonstrate that Members of this House will not sit idly 
by while sanctuary cities continue flouting the laws of our land with 
impunity. We strengthen our detainer policy, enable ICE to do its job, 
and, at the same time, help protect our communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Collins) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule, 
and in strong opposition to the underlying bill, H.R. 3003.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider its 37th closed rule for 
the year, and tomorrow it will take up number 38. My Republican friends 
are breaking all kinds of records here.
  While I often wonder just why the Republican leadership is so afraid 
of open debate in the United States House of Representatives, I do 
recognize that it goes right along with the Republican majority's 
complete rejection of regular order.
  The House of Representatives, I am sad to say, has ceased being a 
deliberative body where important issues are debated freely. The 
Republican leadership has shut this place down, and this is yet another 
example of it.
  Look up the history of the bill the House will debate later today or 
tomorrow, H.R. 3003, the so-called No Sanctuary for Criminals Act. It 
was introduced on June 22. That was last Thursday. Like its 2015 
predecessor, it has had no hearings, no markup, no input from local law 
enforcement, no regular order.
  No one had a chance to testify about this bill. Not the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors that includes the mayors of over 1,000 cities and 
towns, Democrat

[[Page 10039]]

and Republican alike, who represent over 150 million people.
  Not the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Charities, 
Church World Service, and religious and faith leaders from all across 
the land.
  Not the National Fraternal Order of Police, the Law Enforcement 
Immigration Task Force, or the National Task Force to End Sexual and 
Domestic Violence.
  Not the NAACP, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the YWCA, or hundreds 
of national civil rights, human rights, labor, immigration, and 
humanitarian organizations.
  Mr. Speaker, on a bill that would affect hundreds of cities and towns 
and counties across America, why wouldn't we want to hear the views of 
these important law enforcement, State and local government, religious, 
civil society, and victims' organizations?
  The answer is simple, Mr. Speaker. Because they all oppose this 
legislation. All of them.
  It is much easier for Republicans to close down the process and 
steamroll this terrible bill through Congress than to actually get 
feedback from the American people and the leaders charged with keeping 
them safe.
  If you are going to pass a bill that has so much public opposition, I 
guess it makes sense to do it quickly and with as little debate as 
possible.
  Welcome to the House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker, where the 
voices of the American people are shut out as Republicans continue to 
ram through their radical agenda.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3003 does nothing to advance cooperation between 
local law enforcement with the Federal Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement. Cooperation between local and Federal agencies to 
apprehend, try, and punish serious criminal offenders, and in the case 
of foreign nationals, to imprison and then deport them, has always been 
a high priority. These are matters of national security.
  But instead of continuing to foster cooperation and strengthen this 
priority, this bill chooses to blackmail, coerce, and penalize local 
law enforcement agencies and demand that they potentially violate the 
Constitution of the United States, in particular the Fourth Amendment, 
the 10th Amendment, and the 14th amendment.
  I wish my Republican friends were as faithful to the rights enshrined 
in these amendments of the Bill of Rights as they are to the Second 
Amendment, but then that is a whole other debate.
  And let's think about this for a minute. What are they proposing to 
do?
  For communities and local law enforcement that believe that doing 
what this bill asks them to do would make it more difficult for them to 
do local policing, and would make it more difficult for them to have 
the trust of members in their community to report crimes. What my 
Republican friends propose to do is take away important Federal funding 
to help keep these communities safe.
  What are we talking about here?
  I think it is important for people to understand this. Programs like 
the COPS programs, the Community Oriented Policing Services; the State 
Criminal Alien Assistance Program; the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant 
program; and national security programs, those things would be taken 
away from local communities. It doesn't make any sense.
  For example, the Bynre JAG is a major source of criminal justice 
funding for local law enforcement and provided $275 million in fiscal 
year 2016 for prevention and education programs, drug treatment and 
enforcement, crime victim and witness initiatives, and other community-
based programs.
  Other funding programs and grants that are threatened under this bill 
are used to address sexual assault, gang violence, and trafficking such 
as the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative, the Violent Gang and Gun Crime 
Reduction Program, and the Reach and Evaluation on Trafficking in 
Persons program.
  Maybe nobody read what this bill does before they brought it to the 
floor. I just don't understand the logic of basically trying to 
blackmail communities by taking away important funding that is designed 
to protect the citizens of various communities across this country.
  Mr. Speaker, this so-called sanctuary cities bill, as I mentioned, 
threatens to strip local jurisdictions of Federal grants and funding. 
It specifically targets law enforcement, counterterrorism, and national 
security grants when they prioritize working with immigrant communities 
to keep our neighbors and cities and towns safe.

                              {time}  1245

  I don't think Washington knows best all the time, unlike my 
Republican colleagues. I trust my local police departments on this 
issue more than I trust my friends on the other side of the aisle. 
Republicans would rather demonize these cities, towns, and local police 
agencies and force them to squander scarce local resources on 
immigration enforcement instead of local policing, making our cities 
and our communities less safe, not more safe.
  This is why law enforcement and city governments oppose this bill. It 
deliberately and cynically undermines their ability to protect their 
communities, nurture public trust in the police and our legal system, 
and strengthen public safety.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill reeks of prejudice. It isn't meant to solve 
any problem. It is meant to punish cities that don't embrace the 
radical views of the anti-immigrant rightwing of the Republican Party. 
It is meant to demonize all immigrants as criminals. It is meant to 
turn our local police into the lackeys of ICE.
  Mr. Speaker, this House continues to wait and wait and wait for the 
Republican majority to show some leadership and bring up a 
comprehensive immigration reform bill. It has been more than 4 years 
since the Senate passed a strong, bipartisan immigration reform bill, 
and we are still waiting for House Republicans to step up and act, to 
actually try to solve a problem rather than continue to divide our 
country and continue to act in a way that is polarizing.
  What we need is a way to bring 11 million of our neighbors, friends, 
colleagues, small-business owners, and hardworking residents out of the 
shadows. That is what makes America stronger. That is why 9 out of 10 
Americans support immigration reform that creates a path to citizenship 
for the undocumented, according to a March 2017 poll by CNN/ORC.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the article about the poll.

                     [From cnn.com, Mar. 17, 2017]

     CNN/ORC Poll: Americans Break With Trump on Immigration Policy

                  (By Tal Kopan and Jennifer Agiesta)

       Washington (CNN).--Americans disagree with President Donald 
     Trump's immigration priorities, according to a new CNN/ORC 
     poll, with nearly two-thirds of Americans saying they'd like 
     to see a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants 
     rather than deportations.
       Trump has made tough border security and strict enforcement 
     of US immigration laws a focal point of his campaign and 
     presidency--using some of his first executive orders to pave 
     the way for far more deportations and detentions as well as 
     ordering the construction of a Southern border wall.
       But a CNN/ORC poll released Friday finds that the public is 
     actually moving in the opposite direction since Trump has won 
     election.
       Americans are more likely to say that the nation's top 
     immigration priority should be to allow those in the US 
     illegally to gain legal status--and six in 10 say they are 
     more concerned that deportation efforts will be overzealous 
     than they are that dangerous criminals will be overlooked.
       All told, 60% say the government's top priority in dealing 
     with illegal immigration should be developing a plan to allow 
     those in the US illegally who have jobs to become legal 
     residents.
       In contrast, 26% say developing a plan to stop illegal 
     border crossings should be the top priority and 13% say 
     deportation of those in the US illegally should be the first 
     priority.
       The number who prioritize legal status for those working in 
     the US illegally is up from 51% who said so last fall. That 
     shift comes across party lines, with Democrats and 
     independents each 10 points more likely and Republicans 8 
     points more likely to choose a plan for legal status now 
     compared with last fall.
       While Trump campaigned heavily against ``amnesty'' for 
     undocumented immigrants, he has avoided rescinding an Obama 
     administration program offering protections and work permits 
     to those who were brought to

[[Page 10040]]

     the US as children, and in a recent meeting with reporters a 
     senior administration official indicated Trump could be open 
     to a compromise that included a path to legalization, if not 
     citizenship, if it came to his desk.
       Trump told Congress in his joint address last month that he 
     supported the idea of an immigration reform compromise, but 
     offered few details.
       Offering citizenship to those immigrants who are living in 
     the US illegally but hold a job, speak English and are 
     willing to pay back taxes is immensely popular, with 90% 
     behind such a plan. That's consistent across party lines, 
     with 96% of Democrats, 89% of independents and 87% of 
     Republicans behind it.
       The President has described his immigration policies as 
     focused on removing criminals, though critics of his 
     administration say enforcement agencies' definition of 
     criminal is too expansive and sweeps up people who only broke 
     immigration laws.
       He has also ordered the creation of offices and reports 
     focused on publicizing victims of crimes committed by 
     undocumented immigrants.
       Americans say, however, they are more concerned about the 
     effects of deportations than they are about immigrant crimes.
       Overall, 58% say they're more concerned that deportation 
     efforts will go too far and result in deportation of people 
     who haven't committed serious crimes, while 40% say they're 
     more concerned that those efforts will not go far enough and 
     dangerous criminals will remain in the US. That number is 
     largely driven by Democrats--more than two-thirds of 
     Republicans say they are concerned efforts won't go far 
     enough.
       As for deportation priorities, seven in 10 say the 
     government should not attempt to deport all immigrants living 
     in the country illegally, up from 66% in the fall.
       A wide majority, nearly eight in 10, support deporting 
     undocumented immigrants who have committed other crimes, 
     however, an area Trump says is his focus. There has been a 
     small uptick, nevertheless, in the share who say the 
     government shouldn't be deporting those living in the US 
     illegally who have been convicted of other crimes, from 15% 
     to 19%.
       Opinions vary by party on both of these questions, though 
     majorities across party lines are on the same side of both 
     arguments. Among Republicans, 55% oppose attempts to deport 
     all people living in the US illegally, below the 86% of 
     Democrats and 71% of independents who feel that way. 
     Considering deportation of those in the country illegally who 
     have been convicted of other crimes, 64% of Democrats favor 
     that, below the 79% of independents and 93% of Republicans 
     who say the same.
       CNN/ORC interviewed 1,025 American adults by phone from 
     March 1 to 4 for the poll, which has a margin of error of 
     plus or minus 3 percentage points. Results by party have a 
     margin of error of plus or minus 6 points.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, instead of working together to find 
commonsense solutions to immigration, the Republican leadership offers 
extreme, deportation-only bills that undermine public safety and hurt 
our communities. Let them register; let them pay a fine; let them be 
documented and not fear talking with the police; and let us recognize 
their many contributions to communities across America.
  These are our friends, our colleagues, and our neighbors. Our kids go 
to school together. We shop at the same grocery stores and eat at the 
same restaurants. We serve together on the PTA and worship together at 
church. Our country is strongest when we lift up our neighbors. This 
bill will only drive us apart.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is just more of the same old divisive 
Republican anti-immigrant formula. It will sow fear among the immigrant 
community, regardless of their status; it will tear families apart; it 
will subvert public trust of local law enforcement and police; and it 
will undermine the Constitution of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, America is better than this. I urge my colleagues to 
reject this closed rule and to oppose the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I respect my friend from Massachusetts a great 
deal. I am not sure what is subversive to the Constitution in upholding 
the law.
  When we deal with this issue, it is about a choice. We can talk about 
local law enforcement and we can talk about cities that do not want to 
do this, but they are making the choice here. It is time we hold people 
accountable for choices.
  I think it is really interesting that we mentioned the State Criminal 
Alien Assistance Program, which, by the way, was meant to reimburse 
localities for holding illegal immigrants. If they are not holding 
them, then why do they need the money to start with?
  So let's at least put it in perspective here. I can talk about 
immigration reform. I believe there is a lot that we can do in that. I 
agree with the gentleman. However, I disagree in the part here, why 
don't we enforce the law that is here?
  By the way, that is currently the law under both President Obama and 
President Trump. Under U.S. Code section 1373, in order to get Federal 
money, they have to comply with this section. This simply builds upon 
what we have already done.
  So I think it is a choice here. I think making it out to be anything 
other than a choice that the localities have made is really trying to 
subvert the process and discuss another issue. We can do that all we 
want. That is what ended up, a lot of times, happening in this rule 
debate.
  But at the end of the day, this is about simply enforcing the law. I 
think if you go to places all over the country and you begin to ask 
them just a simple question and start it off with this, ``Don't you 
think we ought to enforce the law?'' the answer you get over 90 percent 
of the time is yes.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is clear that the laws aren't working. That is why we need 
comprehensive immigration reform, and that is why it is so unfortunate 
that the Republicans in this House have stalled on that issue. We had 
bipartisan support a few years ago for comprehensive immigration 
reform, but people here, for some reason, would rather just demagogue 
the issue than do something about it.
  As I said before, I actually trust my local officials, my local 
police, more than I do my Republican friends who are speaking here 
today and who spoke in the Rules Committee last night.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to all of us from the 
National Fraternal Order of Police, which is strongly opposed to this 
bill; a letter to all of us from The United States Conference of 
Mayors, which is strongly opposed to all of this; a letter to all of us 
from the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, which is strongly 
opposed to this bill; and a letter to all of us from Cities for Action, 
which is strongly opposed to this bill.

                                                          National


                                    Fraternal Order of Police,

                                    Washington, DC, June 27, 2017.
     Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Kevin O. McCarthy,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,
     Minority Whip, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker and Representatives McCarthy, Pelosi and 
     Hoyer: I am writing on behalf of the members of the Fraternal 
     Order of Police to reiterate the FOP's 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 at the local level. The 
     House will consider H.R. 3003 on the floor this week and 
     Section 2 of this bill would restrict the hiring program 
     administered by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 
     Services (COPS), the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance 
     Grant (Byrne-JAG) programs, as well as programs administered 
     by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
       The FOP has been very clear on this issue: we strongly 
     believe that local and State law enforcement agencies should 
     cooperate with their Federal counterparts. That being said, 
     withholding needed assistance to law enforcement agencies--
     which have no policymaking role--also hurts public safety 
     efforts.
       Local police departments answer to local civilian 
     government and it is the local government which enacts 
     statutes and ordinances in their communities. Law enforcement 
     officers have no more say in these matters than any other 
     citizen and--with laws like the Hatch Act in place--it can be 
     argued they have less. Law enforcement officers do

[[Page 10041]]

     not get to pick and choose which laws to enforce, and must 
     carry out lawful orders at the direction of their commanders 
     and the civilian government that employs them. It is unjust 
     to penalize law enforcement and the citizens they serve 
     because Congress disagrees with their enforcement priorities 
     with respect to our nation's immigration laws.
       The FOP issued a statement in January of this year 
     regarding the approach of the Administration on sanctuary 
     cities as outlined in President Trump's Executive Order. The 
     President recognized that it is unfair to penalize the law 
     enforcement agencies serving these jurisdictions for the 
     political decisions of local officials. It allows the U.S. 
     Attorney General and Secretary of the U.S. Department of 
     Homeland Security to make an informed decision about the 
     public safety impact without an automatic suspension from 
     Federal grant programs. In Section 2 of H.R. 3003, there is 
     no such discretion and it countermands the Administration's 
     existing policy.
       The FOP opposed several bills in the previous Congress, 
     which were outlined in a letter to the Senate leadership, and 
     we will continue to work against proposals that would reduce 
     or withhold funding or resources from any Federal program for 
     local and State law enforcement. If Congress wishes to effect 
     policy changes in these sanctuary cities, it must find 
     another way to do so.
       On behalf of the more than 330,000 members of the Fraternal 
     Order of Police, I want to urge the House to reject H.R. 
     3003's punitive approach and work with law enforcement to 
     find a better way to improve public safety in our 
     communities. Please feel free to contact me or my Senior 
     Advisor Jim Pasco in my Washington office if I can be of any 
     further assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Chuck Canterbury,
     National President.
                                  ____

                                                 The United States


                                         Conference of Mayors,

                                    Washington, DC, June 26, 2017.
       Dear Representative: I write to register the strong 
     opposition of the nation's mayors to H.R. 3003, a partisan 
     bill that seeks to punish so-called ``sanctuary cities,'' 
     which is expected to be considered by the full House this 
     week.
       The U.S. Conference of Mayors represents well over a 
     thousand mayors and nearly 150 million people. Today, we 
     concluded the 85th Annual Meeting of The U.S. Conference of 
     Mayors and adopted policy that reinforces and builds on 
     previous positions we have taken which oppose provisions in 
     this bill. Specifically, the nation's mayors:
       urge members of Congress to withdraw legislation that 
     attempts to cut local law enforcement funding necessary to 
     ensure the safety of our communities, indemnify conduct that 
     violates the constitutional rights afforded to both United 
     States citizens and immigrant populations, and further 
     criminalizes immigration and infringes on the rights of 
     immigrant;
       oppose punitive policies that limit local control and 
     discretion, and urge instead that Congress and the 
     Administration pursue immigration enforcement policies that 
     recognize that local law enforcement has limited resources 
     and community trust is critical to local law enforcement and 
     the safety of our communities;
       oppose federal policies that commandeer local law 
     enforcement or require local UN authorities to violate, or be 
     placed at risk of violating, a person's Fourth Amendment 
     rights; expend limited resources to act as immigration 
     agents; or otherwise assist federal immigration authorities 
     beyond what is determined by local policy.
       HR 3003 would do all of these things and more:
       It would jeopardize public safety by withholding critical 
     public safety funding from jurisdictions that tell their 
     police officers not to ask an individual their immigration 
     status. Many departments have such policies to encourage 
     crime victims and witnesses to report crimes and to build 
     trust with immigrant communities.
       It would put jurisdictions at risk of violating an 
     individual's Fourth Amendment rights by establishing probable 
     cause standards for ICE's issuance of detainers that do not 
     require a judicial determination of probable cause. Numerous 
     federal courts have found that continued detention under an 
     ICE detainer, absent probable cause, would state a claim for 
     a violation of the Fourth Amendment and subject the detaining 
     officer or jurisdiction to civil liability.
       While it says it would provide immunity to jurisdictions 
     which comply with detainers and hold them harmless in any 
     suits filed against them, they would still be subject to 
     Fourth Amendment challenges.
       Further compelling and expanding compliance with certain 
     enforcement provisions, such as immigration detainers, and 
     cutting off federal funding to jurisdictions which do not 
     comply with these provisions likely conflict with the Tenth 
     Amendment.
       H.R. 3003 is a bad bill for our cities and their residents 
     and for our nation. It would jeopardize public safety, 
     preempt local authority, and expose local governments to 
     litigation and potential findings of damages. America's 
     mayors call on you to do the right thing and vote against 
     H.R. 3003 when it is considered on the floor.
       The U.S. Conference of Mayors urges you instead to focus on 
     positive legislation that will fix our broken immigration 
     system and make our cities safer. The nation's mayors pledge 
     to work with you on bipartisan immigration reform legislation 
     that will fix our nation's broken immigration system. We need 
     to move beyond punitive bills like H.R. 3003 and develop an 
     immigration system that works for our nation, our cities and 
     our people.
       To make our cities safer we urge you to consider 
     legislation that will help us to fight crime and prevent 
     terrorism. The U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Major Cities 
     Chiefs Association agree that to make the streets of America 
     safe, Congress must act to strengthen bonds between 
     communities and police, expand homeland security grants, 
     invest in mental health and substance abuse services, reduce 
     gun violence, and reform the criminal justice system and 
     strengthen reentry services.
           Sincerely,
                                             Mitchell J. Landrieu,
     Mayor of New Orleans, President.
                                  ____



                                                   Law Enforcement


                                       Immigration Task Force,

                                                    June 28, 2017.
       Dear Member of Congress: As law enforcement leaders 
     dedicated to preserving the safety and security of our 
     communities, we have concerns about legislative proposals 
     that would attempt to impose punitive, ``one-size-fits-all'' 
     policies on state and local law enforcement. Rather than 
     strengthening state and local law enforcement by providing us 
     with the tools to work with the Department of Homeland 
     Security (DHS) in a manner that is responsive to the needs of 
     our communities, these proposals would represent a step 
     backwards.
       Attempts to defund so-called sanctuary cities regularly 
     sweep too broadly, punishing jurisdictions that engage in 
     well-established community policing practices or adhere to 
     federal court decisions that have found federal immigration 
     detainers to violate constitutional protections. We oppose 
     these approaches and urge Congress to work to encourage--
     rather than compel--law enforcement agency cooperation within 
     our federal system.
       We believe that law enforcement should not cut corners. 
     Multiple federal courts have questioned the legality and 
     constitutionality of federal immigration detainers that are 
     not accompanied by a criminal warrant signed by a judge. Even 
     though the legality of such immigration holds is doubtful, 
     some have proposed requiring states and localities to enforce 
     them, shielding them from lawsuits. While this approach would 
     reduce potential legal liability faced by some jurisdictions 
     and departments, we are concerned these proposals would still 
     require our agencies and officers carry out federal 
     directives that could violate the U.S. Constitution, which we 
     are sworn to follow.
       Immigration enforcement is, first and foremost, a federal 
     responsibility. Making our communities safer means better 
     defining roles and improving relationships between local law 
     enforcement and federal immigration authorities. But in 
     attempting to defund ``sanctuary cities'' and require state 
     and local law enforcement to carry out the federal 
     government's immigration enforcement responsibilities, the 
     federal government would be substituting its judgment for the 
     judgment of state and local law enforcement agencies. Local 
     control has been a beneficial approach for law enforcement 
     for decades--having the federal government compel state and 
     local law enforcement to carry out new and sometimes 
     problematic tasks undermines the delicate federal balance and 
     will harm locally-based policing.
       Rather than requiring state and local law enforcement 
     agencies to engage in additional immigration enforcement 
     activities, Congress should focus on overdue reforms of the 
     broken immigration system to allow state and local law 
     enforcement to focus their resources on true threats--
     dangerous criminals and criminal organizations. We believe 
     that state and local law enforcement must work together with 
     federal authorities to protect our communities and that we 
     can best serve our communities by leaving the enforcement of 
     immigration laws to the federal government. Threatening the 
     removal of valuable grant funding that contributes to the 
     health and well-being of communities across the nation would 
     not make our communities safer and would not fix any part of 
     our broken immigration system.
       Our immigration problem is a national problem deserving of 
     a national approach, and we continue to recognize that what 
     our broken system truly needs is a permanent legislative 
     solution--broad-based immigration reform.
           Sincerely,
       Chief Chris Magnus, Tucson, AZ; Chief Sylvia Moir, Tempe, 
     AZ; Ret. Chief Roberto Villasenor, Tucson, AZ; Chief Charlie 
     Beck, Los Angeles, CA; Ret. Chief James Lopez, Los Angeles 
     County, CA; Sheriff Margaret Mims, Fresno County, CA; Sheriff 
     Mike Chitwood, Volusia County, FL; Sheriff Paul Fitzgerald, 
     Story County, IA; Chief Wayne Jerman, Cedar Rapids, IA; 
     Sheriff Bill

[[Page 10042]]

     McCarthy, Polk County, IA; Public Safety Director, Mark 
     Prosser, Storm Lake, IA; Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek, Johnson 
     County, IA.
       Chief Mike Tupper, Marshalltown, IA; Chief William Bones, 
     Boise, ID; Ret. Chief Ron Teachman, South Bend, IN; Ret. 
     Chief James Hawkins, Garden City, KS; Commissioner William 
     Evans, Boston, MA; Chief Ken Ferguson, Framingham, MA; Chief 
     Brian Kyes, Chelsea, MA; Chief Tom Manger, Montgomery County, 
     MD; Chief Todd Axtell, Saint Paul, MN; Sheriff Eli Rivera, 
     Cheshire County, NH; Chief Cel Rivera, Lorain, OH; Public 
     Safety Commissioner Steven Pare, Providence, RI.
       Chief William Holbrook, Columbia, SC; Sheriff Leon Lott, 
     Richland County, SC; Ret. Chief Fred Fletcher, Chattanooga, 
     TN; Chief Art Acevedo, Houston, TX; Sheriff Edward Gonzalez, 
     Harris County, TX; Sheriff Sally Hernandez, Travis County, 
     TX; Sheriff Lupe Valdez, Dallas County, TX; Ret. Chief Chris 
     Burbank, Salt Lake City, UT; Sheriff John Urquhart, King 
     County, WA; Asst. Chief Randy Gaber, Madison, WI; Chief 
     Michael Koval, Madison, WI; Chief Todd Thomas, Appleton, WI.
                                  ____



                                            Cities for Action,

                                                    June 28, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Members of Congress: Cities for Action (C4A) is a 
     coalition of over 150 mayors and municipal leaders that 
     advocates for policies and programs that promote inclusion of 
     foreign-born residents. Our coalition has a deep commitment 
     to promoting public safety and building trust between law 
     enforcement and immigrant communities. We are writing to you 
     today to urge that you oppose the No Sanctuary for Criminals 
     Act, H.R. 3003.
       Cities and counties are united in our opposition to 
     Representative Goodlatte's bill, which would undermine local 
     public safety efforts. Nearly 600 jurisdictions have a 
     variety of policies that would put them at risk of losing 
     millions of dollars in federal funding for local law 
     enforcement, national security, drug treatment, and crime 
     victim initiatives. These policies were adopted due to 
     constitutional concerns and judgements made on the best use 
     of limited resources. Rather than empowering localities to 
     adopt measures designed to enhance the general welfare of 
     their residents, H.R. 3003 would strip localities of the 
     ability to enact common-sense crime prevention policies that 
     ensure victims of crime will seek protection and report 
     crimes.
       Among the types of grants that would be at risk are: the 
     Sexual Assault Kit Initiative, which addresses the growing 
     number of unsubmitted sexual assault kits in law enforcement 
     custody and aims to provide help for victims; the Violent 
     Gang and Gun Crime Reduction Program, which is designed to 
     create safer neighborhoods through a sustained reduction in 
     gang violence and gun crime; and the Research and Evaluation 
     on Trafficking of Persons, which helps support cities' 
     efforts to respond to the challenges that human trafficking 
     pose in their jurisdiction.
       This bill also raises serious concerns by undermining local 
     laws and criminal prosecutions. It would prevent states or 
     localities from establishing laws or policies that prohibit 
     or ``in any way'' restrict compliance with or cooperation 
     with federal immigration enforcement. This intrudes into 
     local policies that help foster a relationship of trust 
     between law enforcement officials and immigrants that will, 
     in turn, promote public safety for all our residents.
       This also raises serious constitutional concerns. The Tenth 
     Amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits the federal 
     government's ability to mandate particular action by states 
     and localities, including in the area of federal immigration 
     law enforcement and investigations. The federal government 
     cannot force states or localities to enact or administer a 
     federal regulatory program, or compel state or local 
     employees to participate in the administration of a federally 
     enacted regulatory scheme.
       In addition, this bill permits DHS to ignore validly issued 
     state or local criminal warrants, which would prevent 
     jurisdictions from completing their prosecution of criminals. 
     The provisions of this bill undercut local law enforcement 
     and will jeopardize public safety efforts.
       Local governments have a strong interest in protecting all 
     residents and maintaining public safety. Therefore, we urge 
     you to oppose the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003, 
     and ensure it never becomes law.
       Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter,
                                                Cities for Action.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I know my friends think Washington knows 
best, but I trust my local police more.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, there is no debating that our immigration 
system is in need of reform. The system doesn't meet the needs of our 
Nation, its businesses, or its families. There are sensible steps we 
can take to ensure that it works better and that the rules are 
followed.
  But rather than work in a bipartisan and top-to-bottom fashion to fix 
our broken laws, today we consider a one-sided and enforcement-only 
approach that is rejected by the majority of Americans.
  This bill would drastically expand and, indeed, compel local 
involvement with Federal immigration enforcement. Even though the 
majority often professes its fondness for states' rights and local 
governance, the bill actually prohibits States and cities from policing 
themselves as they think best, including by having community trust 
policies that disentangle local policing from Federal immigration 
enforcement. These are policies that have proven to engender trust in 
law enforcement and drive down crime.
  The bill prohibits jurisdictions from declining immigration detainer 
requests, even when compliance would violate binding court orders. In 
fact, a lot of Federal district courts have found that, when it is time 
to release an inmate because their sentence has been served, it 
violates the Fourth Amendment to hold that individual upon a mere 
request by the Federal Government. If you want that person, the answer 
is simple: Get a warrant. It is the Fourth Amendment.
  Indeed, the bill also likely violates the 10th Amendment by 
commandeering States to engage in Federal enforcement.
  The bill, as has been mentioned, cuts off critical law enforcement 
funding, and that is why the Fraternal Order of Police has written its 
letter in opposition to the bill.
  Taken together, the provisions of this bill undermine law 
enforcement's ability to keep communities safe, hurt victims and 
witnesses of crimes, and likely violate the U.S. Constitution.
  It is no surprise this bill is a priority for the Trump 
administration. Anti-immigrant sentiment may have become the hallmark 
of the Trump administration, but it does not represent the values of 
our Nation, and, indeed, the majority of Americans strongly oppose 
President Trump's agenda.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose 
the bill.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, again, just going on this, immigration is an interesting 
issue, and we can discuss this. There probably are not a lot of folks 
that I respect more than the gentlewoman from California, but this is a 
constitutional issue. Immigration is a national issue.
  If we are willing to reverse this out and let the States and 
localities determine immigration, I think we settled that way over 200 
years ago. This is where this belongs.
  So, as we look at this, Washington is not saying it knows best. But 
on this issue, it is our domain; it is where we are supposed to be. 
This is our role.
  We believe, simply, that enforcing the law is what we need here. If 
the gentleman believes that States ought to have more control in a lot 
of things that we do, then I think maybe I am getting him closer to 
agreeing with us on healthcare that we need to reform and replace 
ObamaCare and let States have a little bit more information in that.
  But one of the things is that there is no affirmative action on the 
cities here. I think there is sort of a point to make here. There is no 
affirmative action on cities or localities to comply with this issue. 
They are simply, again, as I said earlier, making a choice.
  If they choose not to work through it the current way, then they are 
giving up Federal funding. That is their choice. If they choose to do 
it, they are giving up Federal funding. They are not being forced and 
coerced. They are simply saying: You actually look at it; you make the 
choice in how you want to do it; then explain it to your population. If 
they are agreeing with that, that is your choice.

[[Page 10043]]

  One of the things that often is said here is we trot out letters from 
associations. And I agree. I respect the National Fraternal Order of 
Police and mayors. They have a great thing. But they also represent 
members who are, right now, actually, not in compliance with this, who 
dislike this law. So, naturally, you would say part of their membership 
is going to be supportive of them.
  But, also, growing up in the household of a Georgia State trooper, I 
also know a few things about law enforcement as well. Law enforcement 
wants to protect the communities they serve, and they want to enforce 
the law.
  What is happening right now is that local law enforcement is deciding 
how they are going to do this. They are not cooperating with ICE to 
find a better way to work in their communities. They are simply saying: 
We made a political choice to do something.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I think with the Constitution, this body has the 
political choice to say: That is your choice; just do it without 
Federal funds.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman, my friend, says that this is a constitutional 
question. We agree that the Constitution is an important document, and 
it goes to the heart of why we are opposed to the bill that the 
gentleman is supporting here. The reason why we say that is because we 
have had Federal courts that have decided in ways in the past that 
cause great concern that much in this bill may be unconstitutional.
  Now, that is why we should have had hearings, that radical idea that 
we keep on bringing up, like hearings where people come and testify. 
But I guess that is too much to ask.
  One of the reasons why we are opposed to this is because we are 
concerned that it may undermine the Constitution, and that is a pretty 
big deal. I am happy to give the gentleman my copy of the Constitution 
and references to court cases if he would like to do a little research, 
but, boy, it would have been nice to have a hearing.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter on behalf of 407 local, 
State, and national immigrant, civil rights, faith-based, and labor 
organizations in strong opposition to H.R. 3003.

                                                    June 28, 2017.
     Re Vote NO on the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003, 
         and Kate's Law, H.R. 3004.
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 407 undersigned 
     local, state, and national immigrant, civil rights, faith-
     based, and labor organizations, we urge you to oppose the No 
     Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003 and Kate's Law, H.R. 
     3004, and any similar legislation that jeopardizes public 
     safety, erodes the goodwill forged between local police and 
     its residents, and perpetuates the criminalization and 
     incarceration of immigrants. H.R. 3003 would strip badly 
     needed law enforcement funding for state and local 
     jurisdictions, runs afoul of the Tenth and Fourth Amendment, 
     and unnecessarily expands the government's detention 
     apparatus. H.R. 3004 unwisely expands the federal 
     government's ability to criminally prosecute immigrants for 
     immigration-based offenses, excludes critical humanitarian 
     protections for those fleeing violence, and doubles down on 
     the failed experiment of incarceration for immigration 
     violations.
       Over 600 state and local jurisdictions have policies or 
     ordinances that disentangle their state and local law 
     enforcement agencies from enforcing federal immigration law. 
     The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003, seeks to 
     attack so-called ``sanctuary'' jurisdictions (many of whom do 
     not consider themselves as such) by penalizing state and 
     local jurisdictions that follow the Fourth Amendment of the 
     U.S. Constitution by refusing to honor constitutionally 
     infirm requests for detainers. H.R. 3003 penalizes 
     jurisdictions by eliminating various federal grants, 
     including funding through the Cops on the Beat program, the 
     Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, and 
     any other federal grant related to law enforcement or 
     immigration. Importantly, using the threat of withholding 
     federal grants to coerce state and local jurisdictions likely 
     runs afoul of the Tenth Amendment's prohibition on 
     commandeering, a position supported by over 300 law 
     professors.
       ``Sanctuary'' policies are critical to promote public 
     safety for local communities. Fearing referral to U.S. 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement, victims and witnesses of 
     crime are significantly less likely to communicate with local 
     law enforcement. Local law enforcement authorities have 
     repeatedly echoed this sentiment, acknowledging that 
     community policing policies are paramount to enhancing public 
     safety. Indeed, ``sanctuary'' jurisdictions have less crime 
     and more economic development than similarly situated non-
     ``sanctuary'' jurisdictions. Withholding critically-needed 
     federal funding would, paradoxically, severely cripple the 
     ability of state and local jurisdictions to satisfy the 
     public safety needs of their communities.
       Kate's Law, H.R. 3004, would further criminalize the 
     immigrant community by drastically increasing penalties for 
     immigrants convicted of unlawful reentry. Operation 
     Streamline encapsulates our nation's failed experiment with 
     employing criminal penalties to deter migration. Under 
     Operation Streamline, the federal government prosecutes 
     immigrants for reentry at significant rates. By all practical 
     measures, Operation Streamline has failed to deter migration, 
     wasted billions of taxpayer dollars, and unfairly punished 
     thousands of immigrants who try to enter or reenter the 
     United States to reunite with their children and loved ones. 
     We fear that H.R. 3004's increased penalties for reentry 
     would double down on this failed strategy, explode the prison 
     population, and cost billions of dollars.
       Instead of passing discredited enforcement-only 
     legislation, Congress should move forward on enacting just 
     immigration reform legislation that provides a roadmap to 
     citizenship for the nation's eleven million aspiring 
     Americans and eliminates mass detention and deportation 
     programs that undermine fundamental human rights. Legislation 
     that erodes public safety, disrespects local democratic 
     processes, and raises serious constitutional concerns 
     represents an abdication of the Congress' responsibility to 
     enact fair, humane, and just immigration policy. In light of 
     the above, we urge you to vote NO on the No Sanctuary for 
     Criminals Act, H.R. 3003 and Kate's Law, H.R. 3004.
           Sincerely,


                         National Organizations

       America's Voice Education Fund; American Federation of 
     Teachers; American Friends Service Committee (AFSC); 
     American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; Americans 
     Committed to Justice and Truth; Asian American Legal Defense 
     and Education Fund (AALDEF); Asian Americans Advancing 
     Justice--AAJC; Asian Americans Advancing Justice--Asian Law 
     Caucus; Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO 
     (APALA); Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence; 
     ASISTA; Bend the ArcJewish Action; Black Alliance for Just 
     Immigration; Casa de Esperanza: National Latin@ Network; 
     Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.; Center for American 
     Progress; Center for Employment Training; Center for Gender & 
     Refugee Studies; Center for Law and Social Policy; Center for 
     New Community.
       Center for Popular Democracy (CPD); Christian Church 
     (Disciples of Christ) Refugee & Immigration Ministries; 
     Christian Community Development Association; Church World 
     Service; Coalition on Human Needs; CODEPINK; Columban Center 
     for Advocacy and Outreach; Committee in Solidarity with the 
     People of El Salvador (CISPES); Community Initiatives for 
     Visiting Immigrants in Confinement (CIVIC); Defending Rights 
     & Dissent; Disciples Center for Public Witness; Disciples 
     Home Missions; Dominican Sisters of Sparkill; Drug Policy 
     Alliance; Easterseals Blake Foundation; Equal Rights 
     Advocates; Farmworker Justice; Freedom Network USA; Friends 
     Committee on National Legislation; Fuerza Mundial.
       Futures Without Violence; Grassroots Leadership; Hispanic 
     Federation; Hispanic National Bar Association; Holy Spirit 
     Missionary Sisters--USA--JPIC; Immigrant Legal Resource 
     Center; Intercommunity Peace & Justice Center; Interfaith 
     Worker Justice; Isaiah Wilson; Jewish Voice for Peace; Jewish 
     Voice for Peace--Boston; Jewish Voice for Peace--Tacoma 
     chapter; Jewish Voice for Peace--Western MA; Justice 
     Strategies; Kids in Need of Defense (KIND); Lambda Legal; 
     Laotian American National Alliance; Latin America Working 
     Group; Latino Victory Fund; LatinoJustice PRLDEF.
       League of United Latin American Citizens; Lutheran 
     Immigration and Refugee Service; Mi Familia Vota; Milwaukee 
     Chapter; Jewish Voice for Peace; NAACP; National Center for 
     Transgender Equality; National Coalition Against Domestic 
     Violence; National Coalition for Asian Pacific American 
     Community Development; National Council of Asian Pacific 
     Americans (NCAPA); National Council of Jewish Women; National 
     Council of La Raza (NCLR); National Day Laborer Organizing 
     Network (NDLON); National Education Association; National 
     Immigrant Justice Center; National Immigration Law Center; 
     National Immigration Project of the NLG; National Iranian 
     American Council (NIAC); National Justice for Our Neighbors; 
     National Korean American Service & Education Consortium 
     (NAKASEC); National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health.
       National Latina/o Psychological Association; National 
     Lawyers Guild; National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund; 
     National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights;

[[Page 10044]]

     National Resource Center on Domestic Violence; NETWORK Lobby 
     for Catholic Social Justice; OCA--Asian Pacific American 
     Advocates; Our Revolution; People's Action; PICO National 
     Network; Queer Detainee Empowerment Project; Refugee and 
     Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES); 
     School Social Work Association of America; Sisters of the 
     Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, New Windsor; 
     Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC); Southern 
     Border Communities Coalition; Southern Poverty Law Center; 
     T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights; The Advocates for 
     Human Rights; The Hampton Institute: A Working Class Think 
     Tank.
       The National Alliance to Advance Adolescent Health; The 
     Queer Palestinian Empowerment Network; The Sentencing 
     Project; The United Methodist Church--General Board of Church 
     and Society; U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants; 
     UndocuBlack Network; Unitarian Universalist Association; 
     Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of New Jersey; 
     Unitarian Universalist Service Committee; UNITE HERE; United 
     Child Care, Inc.; United for a Fair Economy; UU College of 
     Social Justice; UURISE--Unitarian Universalist Refugee & 
     Immigrant Services & Education; Voto Latino; We Belong 
     Together; WOLA; Women's Refugee Commission; Working Families; 
     Yemen Peace Project; YWCA.


                     State and Local Organizations

       (MILU) Mujeres Inmigrantes Luchando Unidas; #VigilantLOVE; 
     580 Cafe/Wesley Foundation Serving UCLA; Acting in Community 
     Together in Organizing Northern Nevada (ACTIONN); Advocates 
     for Basic Legal Equality, Inc.; Alianza; All for All; 
     Alliance San Diego; Allies of Knoxville's Immigrant Neighbors 
     (AKIN); American Gateways; Aquinas Center; Arkansas United 
     Community Coalition; Asian Americans Advancing Justice--
     Atlanta; Asian Americans Advancing Justice-LA; Asian 
     Americans United; Asian Counseling and Referral Service; 
     Asian Law Alliance; Asian Pacific American Legal Resource 
     Center; Asylee Women Enterprise; Atlas: DIY.
       Bear Creek United Methodist Church--Congregation Kol Ami 
     Interfaith Partnership; Bethany Immigration Services; 
     Brighton Park Neighborhood Council;
       Cabrini Immigrant Services of NYC; Campaign for Hoosier 
     Families; Canal Alliance; Capital Area Immigrants' Rights 
     Coalition; CASA; Casa Familiar, Inc.; Casa Latina; Casa San 
     Jose; Catholic Charities; Catholic Charities San Francisco, 
     San Mateo & Marin; Causa Oregon; CDWBA Legal Project, Inc.; 
     Central American Legal Assistance; Central New Jersey Jewish 
     Voice for Peace; Central Pacific Conference of the United 
     Church of Christ; Central Valley Immigrant Integration 
     Collaborative (CVIIC).; Centro Laboral de Graton.
       Centro Latino Americano; Centro Legal de la Raza; Centro 
     Romero; Chelsea Collaborative; Chicago Religious Leadership 
     Network on Latin America; Church Council of Greater Seattle; 
     Church of Our Saviour/La Iglesia de Nuestro Salvador 
     Episcopal; Church Women United in New York State; Cleveland 
     Jobs with Justice; Coalicion de Lideres Latinos-CLILA; 
     Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA); Coalition of 
     African Communities; Coloradans For Immigrant Rights, a 
     program of the American Friends Service Committee; Colorado 
     People's Alliance (COPA); Columbia Legal Services; Comite Pro 
     Uno; Comite VIDA; Committee for Justice in Palestine--Ithaca; 
     Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc; Community 
     Legal Services and Counseling Center.
       Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto; Community of 
     Friends in Action, Inc.; Connecticut Legal Services, Inc; 
     CRLA Foundation; CT Working Families; DC-Maryland Justice for 
     Our Neighbors; Delaware Civil Rights Coalition; Do the Most 
     Good Montgomery County (MD); Dominican Sisters--Grand Rapids 
     (MI); Dream Team Los Angeles DTLA; DRUM--Desis Rising Up & 
     Moving; East Bay Sanctuary Covenant; Ecumenical Ministries of 
     Oregon; El CENTRO de Igualdad y Derechos; El Monte Wesleyan 
     Church; Emerald Isle Immigration Center; Employee Rights 
     Center; Encuentro; End Domestic Abuse WI; English Ministry--
     Korean Presbyterian Church of St. Louis.
       Episcopal Refugee & Immigrant Center Alliance; Equal 
     Justice Center; Equality California; Erie Neighborhood House; 
     First Congregational UCC of Portland; First Unitarian 
     Universalist Church of Berks County; Florida Center for 
     Fiscal and Economic Policy; Florida Immigrant Coalition, Inc. 
     (FLIC); Franciscans for Justice; Frida Kahlo Community 
     Organization; Friends of Broward Detainees; Friends of Miami-
     Dade Detainees; Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights; 
     Gethsemane Lutheran Church; Grassroots Alliance for Immigrant 
     Rights; Greater Lafayette Immigrant Allies; Greater New York 
     Labor Religion Coalition; Greater Rochester COALITION for 
     Immigration Justice; Grupo de Apoyo e Integracion 
     Hispanoamericano; HACES.
       Hana Center; Harvard Islamic Society; Her Justice; HIAS 
     Pennsylvania; Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama; 
     Hispanic Legal Clinic; Hudson Valley Chapter of JVP; Human 
     Rights Initiative of North Texas; ICE-Free Capital District; 
     Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; Immanuel 
     Fellowship: a bilingual congregation; Immigrant Justice 
     Advocacy Movement (IJAM); Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project; 
     Immigration Action Group; Immigration Center for Women and 
     Children; Inland Empire--Immigrant Youth Coalition (IEIYC); 
     Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity; International 
     Institute of Buffalo; Irish International Immigrant Center; 
     IRTF--InterReligious Task Force on Central America and 
     Colombia.
       Japanese American Citizens League, San Jose Chapter; Jewish 
     Voice for Peace--Albany, NY chapter; Jewish Voice for Peace--
     Albuquerque; Jewish Voice for Peace--Austin; Jewish Voice for 
     Peace--Bay Area; Jewish Voice for Peace--Cleveland; Jewish 
     Voice for Peace--DC Metro; Jewish Voice for Peace--Denver; 
     Jewish Voice for Peace--Ithaca; Jewish Voice for Peace--Los 
     Angeles; Jewish Voice for Peace--Madison; Jewish Voice for 
     Peace--New Haven; Jewish Voice for Peace--Philadelphia; 
     Jewish Voice for Peace--Pittsburgh; Jewish Voice for Peace--
     Portland; Jewish Voice for Peace--San Diego; Jewish Voice for 
     Peace--South Florida; Jewish Voice for Peace--Syracuse, NY; 
     Jewish Voice for Peace--Triangle NC; Jolt.
       Justice for our Neighbors Houston; Justice for Our 
     Neighbors Southeastern Michigan; Justice For Our Neighbors 
     West Michigan; JVP-HV. Jewish Voice for Peace--Hudson Valley; 
     Kentucky Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; Kids for 
     College; Kino Border Initiative; Kitsap Immigrant Assistance 
     Center; KIWA (Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance); Korean 
     Resource Center; La Casa de Amistad; La Coalicion de Derechos 
     Humanos; La Comunidad, Inc.; La Raza Centro Legal; Lafayette 
     Urban Ministry; Las Vegas Chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace; 
     Latin American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Latino 
     Racial Justice Circle; Latinx Alliance of Lane County; Legal 
     Aid Society of San Mateo County.
       Legal Services for Children; Lemkin House inc; Long Island 
     Wins; Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition; 
     Massachusetts Law Reform Institute; Middle East Crisis 
     Response (MECR); Migrant and Immigrant Community Action 
     Project; Migrant Justice/Justicia Migrante; MinKwon Center 
     for Community Action; Mission Asset Fund; Mississippi 
     Immigrants Rights Alliance (MIRA); Mosaic Family Services; 
     Movement of Immigrant Leaders in Pennsylvania (MILPA); 
     Mujeres Unidas y Activas; Mundo Maya Foundation; National 
     Lawyers Guild--Los Angeles Chapter; New Jersey Alliance for 
     Immigrant Justice; New Mexico Dream Team; New Mexico 
     Immigrant Law Center; New Mexico Voices for Children.
       New Sanctuary Movement of Philadelphia; New York 
     Immigration Coalition; NH Conference United Church of Christ 
     Immigration Working Group; North Carolina Council of 
     Churches; North County Immigration Task Force; North Jersey 
     chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace; Northern Illinois Justice 
     for Our Neighbors; Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant 
     Rights; Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP); OCCORD; 
     Occupy Bergen County (New Jersey); OneAmerica; OneJustice; 
     Oregon Interfaith Movement for Immigrant Justice--IMIrJ; 
     Organized Communities Against Deportations; OutFront 
     Minnesota; Pangea Legal Services; PASO--West Suburban Action 
     Project; Pax Christi Florida; Pennsylvania Immigration and 
     Citizenship Coalition,
       Pilgrim United Church of Christ; Pilipino Workers Center; 
     Polonians Organized to Minister to Our Community, Inc. 
     (POMOC); Portland Central America Solidarity Committee; 
     Progreso: Latino Progress; Progressive Jewish Voice of 
     Central PA; Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada; 
     Project Hope--Proyecto Esperanza; Project IRENE; Puget Sound 
     Advocates for Retirement Action(PSARA)n; Racial Justice 
     Action Center; Reformed Church of Highland Park; Refugees 
     Helping Refugees; Refugio del Rio Grande; Resilience Orange 
     County; Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network (RMIAN); 
     Rural and Migrant Ministry; Safe Passage; San Francisco CASA 
     (Court Appointed Special Advocates); Services, Immigrant 
     Rights, and Education Network (SIREN).
       Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, Philadelphia/
     Delaware Valley Chapter; Sisters of St. Francis, St. Francis 
     Province; Sisters of St. Joseph of Rochester, Inc; Skagit 
     Immigrant Rights Council; Social Justice Collaborative; South 
     Asian Fund For Education, Scholarship And Training (SAFEST); 
     South Bay Jewish Voice for Peace; South Texas Immigration 
     Council; Southeast Immigrant Rights Network; St John of God 
     Church; Students United for Nonviolence; Tacoma Community 
     House; Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition; 
     Teresa Messer, Law Office of Teresa Messer; Thai Community 
     Development Center; The Garden, Lutheran Ministry; The 
     International Institute of Metropolitan Detroit; The Legal 
     Project; Tompkins County Immigrant Rights Coalition; 
     Transgender Resource Center of New Mexico.
       Trinity Episcopal Church; U-Lead Athens; Unitarian 
     Universalist Mass Action Network; Unitarian Universalist PA 
     Legislative Advocacy Network (UUPLAN); United African 
     Organization; United Families; University Leadership 
     Initiative; University of San

[[Page 10045]]

     Francisco Immigration and Deportation Defense Clinic; UNO 
     Immigration Ministry; UPLIFT; UpValley Family Centers; 
     VietLead; Vital Immigrant Defense Advocacy & Services, Santa 
     Rosa, CA; Volunteers of Legal Service; Washtenaw Interfaith 
     Coalition for Immigrant Rights; Watertown Citizens for Peace, 
     Justice, and the Environment; Wayne Action for Racial 
     Equality; WeCount!; WESPAC Foundation; Wilco Justice Alliance 
     (Williamson County, TX).
       Women Watch Afrika, Inc.; Worksafe; Young Immigrants in 
     Action; YWCA Alaska; YWCA Alliance; YWCA Berkeley/Oakland; 
     YWCA Brooklyn; YWCA Clark County; YWCA Elgin; YWCA Greater 
     Austin; YWCA Greater Pittsburgh; YWCA Greater Portland; YWCA 
     Madison; YWCA Minneapolis; YWCA Mount Desert Island; YWCA NE 
     KANSAS; YWCA of Metropolitan Detroit; YWCA of the University 
     of Illinois; YWCA Olympia; YWCA Pasadena--Foothill Valley; 
     YWCA Rochester & Monroe County; YWCA Southeastern 
     Massachusetts; YWCA Southern Arizona; YWCA Tulsa; YWCA 
     Warren; YWCA Westmoreland County.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting issue with the 
canvas in the back of the entire immigration laws that need to be 
addressed.
  This body--not the body at the other end of the building, this body--
didn't have the guts to address it 4 years ago, 3 years ago, 2 years 
ago, nor this year. This is something that we need to address, even 
though it is not the bill itself.
  I am a strong supporter of law enforcement. As co-chair of the Law 
Enforcement Caucus, I rise in total opposition to this bill and the 
rule. Here is what the misguided goal of this bill would do:
  You are going to prove a point by penalizing law enforcement for 
immigration policies politicians in their city have to implement. That 
is what you want to do. So it absolves us down here in Washington.
  This bill threatens the central Federal funding streams for law 
enforcement. You have heard all of those programs that are being 
endangered. Any grant administered by the Department of Justice or the 
Department of Homeland Security that is substantially related to law 
enforcement, terrorism, national security, immigration, or 
naturalization you are putting on the chopping block if this bill 
becomes law.
  This bill would not make our communities safer. In fact, it 
undermines public safety.
  The funding this bill puts at risk allows local police departments to 
purchase equipment and hire and provide training for officers. This 
actually jeopardizes the security--read my lips--of communities in 
order to perpetuate a false narrative about immigrants.

                              {time}  1300

  I just received a letter from the New Jersey State Policemen's 
Benevolent Association. I think it says it better than anything I could 
say. It says: ``Politics should not interfere with the safety of our 
members or our ability to do our job.''
  The police are telling us that, and you are asking them to go out and 
do the job of protecting our citizens day in and day out--which we all 
are, I hope--and then you are telling them: But I am sorry, because we 
have a disagreement on this issue, you are going to suffer the 
consequences.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the New Jersey 
State Policemen's Benevolent Association.

                                      New Jersey State Policemen's


                                 Benevolent Association, Inc.,

                                    Woodbridge, NJ, June 28, 2017.
     Re H.R. 3003.

     Hon. William Pascrell, Jr.,
     Paterson, NJ.
       Dear Congressman Pascrell: The New Jersey State Policemen's 
     Benevolent Association (NJSPBA) represents over 33,000 law 
     enforcement officers throughout our state. It is no secret 
     that law enforcement officers risk their own safety every day 
     to keep our communities safe. And as a strong supporter of 
     law enforcement on the floor of the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, we would like to thank you for all your 
     efforts on behalf of the men and women that serve within the 
     law enforcement community.
       It is our understanding that this week the House is voting 
     on H.R. 3003, the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,'' which 
     adds additional obstacles to funding for the hiring of 
     additional police officers in certain communities throughout 
     our state. Specifically, the bill restricts municipalities 
     from receiving grants administered by the Department of 
     Justice or the Department of Homeland Security if municipal 
     officials fail to notify the federal government with regard 
     to the presence of individuals as it relates to information 
     regarding citizenship or immigration status.
       While we strongly agree that state and local law 
     enforcement should work closely with federal law enforcement, 
     cutting off funding for law enforcement to already 
     underfunded and understaffed police departments and law 
     enforcement entities undermines our collective efforts to 
     keep our members and the communities they serve safe. 
     Politics should not interfere with the safety of our members 
     or our ability to do our job.
       On behalf of our membership, we appreciate your ongoing 
     efforts and hope you will continue to work with your 
     colleagues in Congress to assure funding for law enforcement 
     and prevent our government from punishing our membership for 
     something that is completely out of our control.
       I am available to discuss our opposition to H.R. 3003 
     further, at your convenience. You can reach me at our NJSPBA 
     offices, if you have any questions.
       Thank you for all your efforts on behalf of the men and 
     women of law enforcement.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Patrick Colligan,
                                                  State President.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, congressional Republicans are doing that 
right here. They are playing politics with our Nation's security.
  To quote the New Jersey State Policemen's Benevolent Association 
again--these words are from the police, not me--``. . . punishing our 
membership for something that is completely out of our control.''
  Why are the police opposed to this legislation?
  The Fraternal Order of Police you have heard about. Some of my 
friends on the other side of the aisle like to talk the talk when it 
comes to supporting law enforcement until it either costs money or we 
are going to have to deal with the bigger factors. That is a fact.
  You may laugh all you want, but that is a fact. I can cite you 
chapter and verse if you want. This is no laughing matter. This is 
business. This is the lives of the police.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to address remarks to 
the Chair.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will address my remarks to the Chair, but I also will 
not stand here and let it be said from some political angle that the 
son of a Georgia State trooper has anything less than respect for law 
enforcement or wants anything more than to have law enforcement 
agencies do their job. And this is exactly what we are talking about. 
Do your job.
  If you want to make a political statement, then work it out 
politically. But this is: Do your job, keep the law.
  I mean, what else--are we going to get another letter from another 
police association saying: Well, we decided we are not going to enforce 
Federal whatever else?
  This is an issue that needs to be discussed, and I will just simply 
say, from this perspective, of one who has lived it for 50 years and 
who lived it under the same house for 21 years, no, there is no one 
that respects law enforcement and their role more than this Member. And 
this Member is simply reflecting a lot of views of law enforcement.
  This says: Let us do our job. We will work on these issues, but you 
are making a choice. If you don't want to enforce it, then don't take 
the money. Do what you want to do. Just don't take the money.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) in order to respond.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very pathetic way to 
look at our police officers in this country. ``If you don't like it, 
don't take the money.''
  You must be kidding me. I urge my colleagues to find a different 
tactic to

[[Page 10046]]

penalize political decisions that you don't like.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are, again, reminded to address 
their remarks to the Chair, not to individuals on the floor.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question. And if we do defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to this rule to bring up Representative Bobby Scott's Raise 
the Wage Act, H.R. 15, which would finally give workers the raise they 
deserve, and increase the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour within 7 
years.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, America needs a raise. We have not raised 
the minimum wage in 10 years, and people who work hard every single day 
have seen their pay erode again and again.
  Mr. Speaker, people who are working full time at $7.25 an hour can't 
make it. And if we can defeat this previous question, we can actually 
bring up something that the American people really need, which is to 
get a raise.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not something we are going to dump on top of 
business all at once. There is a ladder up. It takes 7 years to get to 
that $15, but, Mr. Speaker, make no doubt that we need to do it.
  Mr. Speaker, right now, today, people working full time qualify for 
food stamps, housing assistance, and medical assistance because their 
employers don't pay them enough to make it. And I know that everybody 
in this House knows that, when people work hard, they ought to be able 
to make it in America.
  If you work full time, you shouldn't be in poverty. You should be 
able to afford a good apartment. You should be able to have good 
scheduling for your job. You should have some benefits. This is all the 
American Dream is about, being able to work hard and get paid fairly 
for it.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I just want to let you know that between 2009 and 
2013, we saw the top 1 percent of income earners get 85 percent of the 
income growth in this country. That means we have historic inequality 
not seen since the Great Depression. It is wrong, Mr. Speaker. And if 
we can defeat this previous question, we should do everything we can to 
pass this excellent piece of legislation that Ranking Member Bobby 
Scott has authored in this body.
  Mr. Scott and I, as well as many other Members, have been all over 
this country, and right here in D.C. standing with workers explaining 
to us their struggles, how they haven't seen a raise, how they haven't 
seen their pay go up. And they are serious, Mr. Speaker, about wanting 
to be part of this economy, too.
  Pass this minimum wage increase. Give America a raise.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the reason why we are trying to bring this 
to the floor by way of defeating the previous question is because the 
Republican majority in this House had basically locked everything down 
so we can't get important bills to the floor.
  We can't even get amendments to the underlying bill that we are 
debating here today. It is really unfortunate and sad for this 
institution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this bill wrongfully endorses political 
interference with professional law enforcement leaders. With no legal 
authority, both President Trump and his Texan look-alike, Governor Greg 
Abbott, want to deny funds and intimidate local governments, who 
rightfully refuse to place politics above public safety.
  I will tell my Republican colleague from Georgia, and his colleagues, 
that the only lawlessness that exists here is the lawlessness of 
President Trump in trying to do this to such an extent that a Federal 
court order stopped him. And they will also, I believe, stop Governor 
Abbott on his outrageous Senate Bill 4.
  Our police chiefs in San Antonio and in Austin, our courageous 
Sheriff, Sally Hernandez, like many law enforcement professionals from 
Texas to New Jersey, they say that maintaining the trust and confidence 
of the immigrant community to report crime, to be witnesses concerning 
crime, that this makes us all safer--immigrant and nonimmigrant alike.
  Any proper arrest warrant presented by ICE will be honored 
everywhere. Detainers, which are merely a bureaucratic message saying 
the bureaucracy is suspicious of someone who should be imprisoned based 
on that suspicion, will not be kept imprisoned--and Federal courts have 
said they should not be--under the Constitution.
  I would say that the only sanctuary that this bill provides is a 
sanctuary for prejudice. It is a sanctuary that defies the reality of 
the America we have today, particularly in the Southwest.
  We should reject this bill and affirm welcoming cities, like mine, 
that are a refuge from anti-immigrant hysteria, but have a strong 
commitment to safety and to effective law enforcement, and looking to 
our local law enforcement, not political interference from Washington 
telling us how to protect our families.
  This very week, four years ago, an overwhelming bipartisan United 
States Senate majority approved comprehensive immigration reform. And 
like the amendments that are being blocked today, these House 
Republicans were so fearful that that bill might become law that they 
will not even permit us to even debate it four years later on the floor 
of this House.
  Instead of this anti-immigrant hysteria, instead of this sorry piece 
of legislation, what we need is broad immigration reform, and we need 
it now.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), our former chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the 
gentleman from Georgia, a member of the Rules Committee, for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the underlying bill, H.R. 3003, No 
Sanctuary for Criminals Act; and I thank the chairman, Bob Goodlatte, 
and Representatives Steve King and Andy Biggs for introducing it.
  This legislation keeps dangerous criminal immigrants off our streets 
and out of our neighborhoods, and it holds sanctuary cities accountable 
for breaking Federal immigration laws. I have a special interest in 
this legislation because it enforces a bill I sponsored in 1969, which 
was enacted into law and made sanctuary cities illegal.
  The American people sent a clear message to Congress last November 
when they elected a President who promised to enforce our immigration 
laws. A recent poll shows that 80 percent--80 percent--of voters want 
cities that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes to be required to turn 
them over to immigration authorities. Eighty percent. That is a 
Harvard-Harris poll.
  The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act is a down payment on our pledge to 
protect innocent Americans from criminal immigrants who deserve to be 
jailed or sent back to their home countries. We need to enact this 
legislation. There is simply no excuse for local governments to ignore 
immigration laws at the expense of American's safety and well-being.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to the entire Congress 
from the American Immigration Lawyers Association in opposition to this 
bill; a letter from Amnesty International in opposition to this bill; 
and a letter from

[[Page 10047]]

Church World Services in opposition to this bill.

Statement of the American Immigration Lawyers Association Opposing the 
``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 
                         3004), June 27, 2017.

       As the national bar association of over 15,000 immigration 
     lawyers and law professors, the American Immigration Lawyers 
     Association (AILA) opposes ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' 
     (H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004). AILA recommends 
     that members of Congress reject these bills which are 
     scheduled to come before the House Rules Committee on June 27 
     and to the floor shortly thereafter. Though Judiciary 
     Chairman Goodlatte stated that the bills will ``enhance 
     public safety,'' they will do the just the opposite: 
     undermine public safety and make it even harder for local law 
     enforcement to protect their residents and communities. In 
     addition, the bills which were made public less than a week 
     before the vote and completely bypassed the Judiciary 
     Committee, include provisions that will result in violations 
     of due process and the Fourth and Tenth Amendments to the 
     Constitution.
       At a time when over 9 out 10 Americans support immigration 
     reform and legalization of the undocumented, Republican 
     leadership is asking the House to vote on enforcement-only 
     bills that will lead to more apprehensions, deportations, and 
     prosecutions of thousands of immigrants and their families 
     who have strong ties to the United States. Instead of 
     criminalizing and scapegoating immigrants, Congress should be 
     offering workable reforms that will strengthen our economy 
     and our country.


             The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, H.R. 3003

       H.R. 3003 would undermine public safety and interfere with 
     local policing: H.R. 3003 would amend 8 Sec. U.S.C. 1373 to 
     prevent states or localities from establishing laws or 
     policies that prohibit or ``in any way'' restrict compliance 
     with or cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The 
     bill dramatically expands 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373 which is more 
     narrowly written and prohibits local law enforcement from 
     restricting the sharing and exchange of information with 
     federal authorities, but only with respect to an individual's 
     citizenship or immigration status.
       Rather than empowering localities, the extremely broad 
     wording of H.R. 3003 would strip localities of the ability to 
     enact common-sense crime prevention policies that ensure 
     victims of crime will seek protection and report crimes. The 
     bill would also undermine public safety by prohibiting DHS 
     from honoring criminal warrants of communities deemed 
     ``sanctuary cities'' if the individual being sought by local 
     law enforcement has a final order of removal.
       Under H.R. 3003, localities that fail to comply with 
     federal immigration efforts are penalized with the denial of 
     federal funding for critical law enforcement, national 
     security, drug treatment, and crime victim initiatives, 
     including the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program 
     (SCAAP), Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), and 
     Byrne JAG programs that provide hundreds of millions of 
     dollars to localities nationwide.
       In an effort to force localities to engage in civil 
     immigration enforcement efforts, including those against 
     nonviolent undocumented immigrants, the bill would make it 
     far more difficult for many localities, including large 
     cities, to arrest and prosecute potentially dangerous 
     criminals. The bill could even offer criminals a form of 
     immunity, knowing that any crimes they commit in a designated 
     sanctuary city would result, at most, in their removal from 
     the country as opposed to criminal prosecution.
       H.R. 3003 would run afoul of constitutional safeguards in 
     the Fourth Amendment: By prohibiting localities from 
     restricting or limiting their own cooperation with federal 
     immigration enforcement, H.R. 3003 effectively compels 
     localities to honor ICE detainer requests--a controversial 
     and constitutionally suspect practice that is nonetheless 
     widely-used by ICE. Federal courts have found that ICE use of 
     detainers violates the Fourth Amendment, and that localities 
     may be held liable for honoring them.
       The bill also expands detainer authority by establishing 
     that ICE may issue detainer requests for localities to hold 
     undocumented immigrants for up to 96 hours--twice what is 
     currently allowed--even if probable cause has not been shown. 
     Courts have concluded that localities cannot continue 
     detaining someone unless ICE obtains a warrant from a neutral 
     magistrate who has determined there is probable cause, or in 
     the case of a warrantless arrest, review by a neutral 
     magistrate within 48 hours of arrest. The expansive 
     provisions in H.R. 3003 would force localities to choose 
     between detaining people in violation of the Constitution or 
     being punished as a ``sanctuary city.''
       Furthermore, this bill provides government actors and 
     private contractors with immunity if they are sued for 
     violating the Constitution. Provisions in this bill transfer 
     the financial burden of litigation by substituting the 
     federal government for the local officers as the defendant. 
     If H.R. 3003 becomes law, American taxpayers would be stuck 
     paying for lawsuits brought by those who are unjustly 
     detained.
       The bill goes even further by creating a private right of 
     action allowing crime victims or their family members to sue 
     localities if the crime was committed by someone who was 
     released by the locality that did not honor an ICE detainer 
     request.
       H.R. 3003 would violate the Tenth Amendment: H.R. 3003 
     would compel states and localities to utilize their local law 
     enforcement resources to implement federal civil immigration 
     enforcement in violation of the Tenth Amendment's 
     ``commandeering'' principle. The Tenth Amendment does not 
     permit the federal government to force counties and cities to 
     allocate local resources, including police officers, 
     technology, and personnel, to enforce federal immigration 
     law. The federal government also cannot withhold funds from 
     localities refusing to participate in federal efforts if the 
     programs affected are unrelated to the purpose of the federal 
     program, or if the sanctions are punitive in nature.
       H.R. 3003 would expand detention without due process: H.R. 
     3003 would increase the use of detention without ensuring 
     those detained have access to a bond determination. Under the 
     bill, nearly anyone who is undocumented, including those who 
     have overstayed their visa would be subject to detention 
     without a custody hearing. The bill also establishes that DHS 
     has the authority to detain individuals ``without time 
     limitation'' during the pendency of removal proceedings. 
     These provisions would dramatically expand the federal 
     government's power to indefinitely detain individuals, and 
     would likely result in ever growing numbers of undocumented 
     immigrants held in substandard detention facilities.


                         Kate's Law, H.R. 3004

       H.R. 3004 would expand the already severe penalties in 
     federal law for illegal reentry (NA 276; 8 U.S.C. 1326). The 
     number of people prosecuted for illegal reentry has grown 
     steadily to about 20,000 prosecutions each year, and such 
     cases comprise more than one quarter of all federal criminal 
     prosecutions nationwide. H.R. 3004 adds sentencing 
     enhancements for people who are convicted of minor 
     misdemeanors and people who have reentered multiple times but 
     have no criminal convictions. This bill will not improve 
     public safety and will undermine due process and protections 
     for asylum seekers. H.R. 3004 would waste American taxpayer 
     funds by imposing severe prison sentences upon thousands of 
     people who pose no threat to the community and who have 
     strong ties to the country and are trying to unite with their 
     loved ones.
       H.R. 3004 would impose severe sentencing enhancements upon 
     people with minor offenses: H.R. 3004 would add sentencing 
     enhancements for minor misdemeanor convictions, including 
     driving without a license and other traffic-related offenses. 
     Under the current version of INA Sec. 276, if a person is 
     charged with reentering the U.S. after being removed, their 
     punishment is enhanced by up to ten years only if they have 
     been convicted a felony or three or more misdemeanors 
     involving drugs or violence. Under H.R. 3004 someone who has 
     been convicted of any three misdemeanors regardless of 
     severity would be subject to a term of up to ten years.
       This expansion would unfairly target large numbers of 
     people who are not a threat to public safety but instead are 
     trying to reunite with family members and have other strong 
     ties to the United States. Currently half of all people 
     convicted of illegal reentry have one child living in the 
     country. Increasing sentences for illegal reentry would also 
     waste taxpayer dollars, costing huge amounts of money to lock 
     up non-violent people.
       H.R. 3004 would punish people who attempt to seek asylum at 
     the border: H.R. 3004 expands the provisions of INA 276 to 
     punish not only people who reenter the U.S. or attempt to 
     reenter the U.S., but also people who cross or attempt to 
     cross the border. The bill goes on to define ``crosses the 
     border'' to mean ``the physical act of crossing the border, 
     regardless of whether the alien is free from official 
     restraint.'' That means that people who present themselves at 
     ports of entry to request asylum and are taken into custody 
     by CBP to await a fear screening would be subject to criminal 
     charges based on a past removal, even though they are seeking 
     refuge in the U.S.
       H.R. 3004 would impose severe sentencing enhancements for 
     people with multiple entries: The bill would also create new 
     sentencing enhancements for people who have reentered the 
     U.S. multiple times, even if they have no other criminal 
     convictions. If someone has been removed three or more times, 
     and is found in the United States or attempts to cross the 
     border again, H.R. 3004 law would provide for sentencing 
     enhancements of up to ten years. The bill makes no exception 
     for bona fide asylum seekers, which means that people who are 
     seeking refuge in the U.S. from atrocities abroad could be 
     subject to a lengthy prison sentence under these provisions.
       H.R. 3004 would undermine due process by blocking 
     challenges to unfair removal orders: The bill will prevent an 
     individual from challenging the validity of a removal order, 
     even it was fundamentally unfair in the first place. The 
     Supreme Court held in U.S. v. Mendoza-Lopez, 481 U.S. 828 
     (1987) that due

[[Page 10048]]

     process requires that a challenge be allowed if a deportation 
     proceeding is used as an element of a criminal offense and 
     where the proceeding ``effectively eliminate[d] the right of 
     the alien to obtain judicial review.'' This provision in H.R. 
     3004 is likely unconstitutional and will cause grave 
     injustice to defendants, such as asylum seekers who were 
     deported without the opportunity to seek asylum.
                                  ____



                                        Amnesty International,

                                                    June 28, 2017.


  Amnesty International USA urges a vote ``NO'' on H.R. 3003 and H.R. 
                                  3004

       Dear Representative: On behalf of Amnesty International USA 
     (``AIUSA'') and our more than one million members and 
     supporters nationwide, we strongly urge you to oppose the No 
     Sanctuary for Criminals Act (H.R. 3003) and Kate's Law (H.R. 
     3004). Both bills are scheduled for House floor votes as 
     early as June 28. If passed, both bills would pave the way 
     for and accelerate the implementation of policies that 
     increase the criminalization and detention of immigrants and 
     asylum seekers, thereby violating the United States' 
     obligations under international law.
       AIUSA will be scoring these votes.
       I. The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act (H.R. 3003) would 
     prevent municipalities from determining how law enforcement 
     agencies are engaging in immigration enforcement, and would 
     dramatically expand indefinite detention and mandatory 
     detention of immigrants in jail-like facilities with subpar 
     dangerous conditions, in violation of international human 
     rights standards.
       H.R. 3003 would prevent localities from enacting community 
     trust policies that instruct local police not to carry out 
     federal immigration enforcement, thereby undermining policing 
     practices designed to build trust and confidence between 
     local law enforcement and the communities they serve. This 
     bill would open the door to racial profiling against Latinos 
     and other communities of color, including U.S. citizens.
       International law firmly prohibits discrimination, and the 
     United States' commitment to those obligations applies to 
     citizens and non-citizens alike.
       States that have passed anti-immigrant legislation that 
     requires local law enforcement to cooperate with immigration 
     agencies or to inquire about immigration status regarding any 
     interactions with law enforcement have compromised the right 
     to justice for immigrant communities by discouraging 
     immigrant survivors from reporting crimes.
       The U.S. government has an obligation to prevent and 
     address abuse of immigrants and ensure that all immigrants 
     are able to access available remedies. This includes acting 
     with due diligence to investigate and punish criminal conduct 
     committed by private individuals, and guaranteeing access to 
     justice for immigrant victims of crime.
       Amnesty International has also documented how the increased 
     involvement of state and local law enforcement agencies in 
     immigration enforcement, without adequate oversight and 
     accountability to prevent abuses, contributes to the rise in 
     reports of racial profiling for Latino communities and other 
     communities of color. Numerous studies have demonstrated that 
     programs that integrate the criminal justice system and law 
     enforcement as an entry point for immigration enforcement 
     have led to racial profiling and other abuses.
       In addition, H.R. 3003 would dramatically expand the 
     Department of Homeland Security (``DES'') immigration 
     detention powers by authorizing mandatory detention ``without 
     time limitation.'' This would empower the DHS to detain 
     untold numbers of immigrants for as long as it takes to 
     conclude immigration court removal proceedings, even if that 
     takes years. Section 4 would also authorize indefinite 
     mandatory detention Without providing the basic due process 
     of an immigration judge bond hearing to determine if the 
     immigrant's imprisonment was justified in the first place. 
     Finally, section 4 would expand mandatory detention of 
     immigrants with no criminal record whatsoever, including 
     immigrants who overstayed a visa or lack legal papers.
       The mandatory detention system, which provides for the 
     automatic detention of individuals, amounts to arbitrary 
     detention, and is in violation of international law, which 
     requires that detention be justified in each individual case 
     and be subject to judicial review. The expansion of offenses 
     which would fall under mandatory detention as demonstrated in 
     H.R., as proposed by H.R. 3003, amounts to arbitrary 
     detention, and is in violation of international law, which 
     requires that detention be justified in each individual case 
     and be subject to judicial review. U.S. federal courts have 
     also consistently held that detaining immigrants for months 
     and years without bond hearings raises serious problems under 
     the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.
       The proposed dramatic expansion of immigration detention 
     powers envisioned in H.R. 3003 comes at a time when 
     immigration detention has already hit record-highs, with the 
     average daily population (``ADP'') exceeding 40,000 in 
     comparison to a 34,000 ADP for the preceding seven years. 
     This sharp escalation in the number of detained immigrants 
     also comes at a time when Human Rights Watch (``HRW'') has 
     reported new evidence of dangerously subpar medical care in 
     immigration detention, including unreasonable delays in care 
     and unqualified medical staff that are likely to expose a 
     record number of immigrants to dangerous conditions. This 
     recent HRW report is only the latest of a series of shocking 
     reports documenting DHS's failure to provide care to ill or 
     injured immigrants in its custody.
       The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 
     (ICCPR), which the United States has ratified, guarantees all 
     people the rights to be free from discrimination and 
     arbitrary arrest and detention, and the right to due process, 
     including fair deportation procedures. Finally, noncitizens 
     who are detained have a right to humane conditions of 
     detention and are entitled to prompt review of their 
     detention by an independent court. The mass expansion of 
     mandatory detention and immigration detention proposed by 
     H.R. 3003 violates all of these international human rights 
     standards.
       II. H.R. 3004 would increase mass incarceration of 
     immigrants, including survivors of persecution or torture, by 
     increasing criminal penalties for the mere act of migration--
     in violation of international human rights standards.
       Current law already criminalizes illegal reentry in 
     violation of international law and standards under 8 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1326, imposing a sentence of up to 20 years on anyone 
     convicted of illegal reentry after committing an aggravated 
     felony. According to data compiled by the Transactional 
     Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, in 
     fiscal year 2016 federal criminal prosecutions for illegal 
     entry, reentry, and similar immigration violations made up 52 
     percent of all federal prosecutions nationwide--surpassing 
     drugs, weapons, fraud and thousands of other crimes.
       Criminal penalties for unauthorized entry are obstacles for 
     identifying the victims of human rights abuses, and prevent 
     victims from seeking justice. They undermine human rights 
     protections afforded in international law, including the 
     right to seek asylum. The Special Rapporteur on the Human 
     Rights of Migrants has repeatedly stressed that where 
     detention is used as a punitive measure, it is 
     disproportionate and inappropriate, and stigmatizes 
     undocumented immigrants as criminals.
       The criminal prosecution of illegal reentry has grown 
     exponentially over the past decade. In 2002 there were 8,000 
     prosecutions for illegal reentry; in 2012 these prosecutions 
     had increased to 37,000. Nearly 99 percent of illegal reentry 
     defendants were sentenced to federal prison time, ranging 
     from a few days to 10 years or more for felony reentry before 
     they are eventually deported.
       Beyond the trend towards more aggressive criminal 
     prosecutions for illegal reentry, a 2015 U.S. Sentencing 
     Commission report found nearly 50 percent of people sentenced 
     in fiscal 2013 for illegal re-entry had at least one child 
     living in the U.S. Many of the individuals charged with 
     illegal reentry previously resided in the U.S. for many years 
     and are desperate to return to their family in the U.S.
       On top of this longstanding trend of harsher criminal 
     prosecution for illegal reentry--the sponsors of H.R. 3004 
     would seek to expand the category of individuals subject to 
     illegal reentry prosecution to include people who surrender 
     themselves at the southern border to seek protection in the 
     U.S. The bill would also expand sentencing enhancements for 
     illegal reentry, and would prosecute people for illegal 
     reentry even if their previous removal orders were unlawful 
     or deprived them of the opportunity to seek protection. For 
     example, the bill would criminalize asylum seekers who return 
     to the U.S. after being previously denied the opportunity to 
     present their claims for protection.
       While all sovereign states have a legitimate interest in 
     regulating entry into their territories, they can only do so 
     within the limits of their obligations under international 
     law. The U.S. government has an obligation under 
     international human rights law to ensure that its laws, 
     policies, and practices do not place immigrants at an 
     increased risk of human rights abuses. Specifically, 
     individuals have a right to seek asylum from persecution and 
     protection from refoulement, and prosecuting asylum seekers 
     prior to adjudication of their asylum applications violates 
     U.S. obligations under the Refugee Convention. Similarly the 
     Convention Against Torture prohibits a State from expelling, 
     returning, or extraditing a person to another State where 
     there are substantial grounds for believing that s/he would 
     be in danger of being subjected to torture. Finally, all 
     individuals, regardless of immigration status, have a right 
     to family unity which can include limits on the State's power 
     to deport, as recognized by the Human Rights Committee's 
     interpretation of ICCPR obligations.
       All of these international human rights standards are 
     violated by H.R. 3004.
       AIUSA strongly urges you to oppose both H.R. 3003 and H.R. 
     3004.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Joanne Lin,

                                         Senior Managing Director,
                                  Advocacy and Government Affairs.

[[Page 10049]]

     
                                  ____
  CWS Statement to Opposing H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals 
                     Act, and H.R. 3004, Kate's Law

       As a 71-year old humanitarian organization representing 37 
     Protestant, Anglican, and Orthodox communions and 34 refugee 
     resettlement offices across the country, Church World Service 
     (CWS) urges all Members of Congress to support the 
     longstanding efforts of law enforcement officials to foster 
     trusting relationships with the communities they protect and 
     serve. As we pray for peace and an end to senseless acts of 
     violence that are too prevalent in this country, CWS 
     encourages the U.S. Congress to refrain from politicizing 
     tragedies or conflating the actions of one person with an 
     entire community of our immigrant brothers and sisters and 
     oppose H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, and 
     H.R. 3004, Kate's Law.
       H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, would target 
     more than 600+ cities, counties, and states across the 
     country and threaten to take away millions of dollars in 
     federal funding that local police use to promote public 
     safety. Communities are safer when they commit to policies 
     that strengthen trust and cooperation between local law 
     enforcement, community leadership and institutions, and all 
     residents, regardless of immigration status. The Federal 
     government should not hurt intentional, community-based 
     policing efforts that are vital in communities across the 
     country. Many cities have already recognized that requests by 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to hold individuals 
     beyond their court-appointed sentences violate due process 
     and have been found unconstitutional by federal courts. This 
     bill would raise profound constitutional concerns by 
     prohibiting localities from declining to comply with ICE 
     detainer requests even when such compliance would violate 
     federal court orders and the U.S. Constitution. Local police 
     that refuse ICE detainer requests see an increase in public 
     safety due to improved trust from the community. It is 
     precisely this trust that enables community members to report 
     dangerous situations without the fear of being deported or 
     separated from their families. When local police comply with 
     ICE detainer requests, more crimes go unreported because 
     victims and witnesses are afraid of being deported if they 
     contact the police. This bill would also undermine local 
     criminal prosecutions by allowing the Department of Homeland 
     Security (DHS) to ignore state or local criminal warrants and 
     refuse to transfer individuals to state or local custody in 
     certain circumstances. This bill would reduce community 
     safety by preventing state and local jurisdictions from 
     holding people accountable.
       The United States already spends more than $18 billion on 
     immigration enforcement per year, more than all other federal 
     law enforcement agencies combined. H.R. 3004, Kate's Law, 
     would expand the federal government's ability to prosecute 
     individuals for ``illegal reentry'' and impose even more 
     severe penalties in these cases--even though prosecutions for 
     migration-related offenses already make up more than 50% of 
     all federal prosecutions. Yet, this bill does not include 
     adequate protections for individuals who reenter the U.S. in 
     order to seek protection, which would place asylum seekers at 
     risk of being returned to the violence and persecution they 
     fled. We have seen how Border Patrol's current practices 
     violate existing U.S. law and treaty obligations by 
     preventing viable asylum claims from moving forward. DHS has 
     found that in some areas, Border Patrol refers asylum seekers 
     for criminal prosecution despite the fact that they have 
     expressed fear of persecution. In May 2017, a report was 
     released highlighting that many asylum seekers, who had 
     expressed a fear of returning to their home countries are 
     being turned away by GBP agents. New barriers to protection 
     are unnecessary and would dangerously impede our obligations 
     under international and U.S. law.
       Federal, state, and local policies that focus on 
     deportation do not reduce crime rates. Individuals are being 
     deported who present no risk to public safety and who are 
     long-standing community members, including parents of young 
     children. Immigrants come to this country to reunite with 
     family, work, and make meaningful contributions that enrich 
     their communities. Several studies over the last century have 
     affirmed that all immigrants, regardless of nationality or 
     status, are less likely than U.S. citizens to commit violent 
     crimes. A recent report found a correlation between the 
     increase in undocumented immigrants, and the sharp decline in 
     violent and property crime rates. Immigration is correlated 
     with significantly higher employment growth and a decline in 
     the unemployment rate, and immigrants have high 
     entrepreneurial rates, creating successful businesses that 
     hire immigrant and U.S. citizen employees.
       As communities of faith, we are united by principles of 
     compassion, stewardship, and justice. CWS urges all Members 
     of Congress to oppose H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for 
     Criminals Act, and H.R. 3004, Kate's Law. What we need are 
     real solutions and immigration policies that treat our 
     neighbors with the dignity and respect that all people 
     deserve and affirm local law enforcement officer's efforts to 
     build trust with their communities.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Again, Mr. Speaker, our objection is that Washington 
doesn't always know best. We ought to trust our local law enforcement 
officials, our local police as to what is effective in terms of 
protecting the citizens of our community.
  To introduce legislation that would essentially punish our local 
police for doing what they think is in the best interest of their 
communities, this bill should be renamed ``punish our local police,'' 
because that is what it does.
  I can't believe that we are going down this road. Maybe it is a nice 
sound bite, maybe it is a nice press release, maybe it fits in with the 
Trump campaign rhetoric on immigrants and immigration; but this is just 
a lousy idea. And I think if we did hearings on this bill, if we 
actually spent some time being thoughtful about this issue, my 
colleagues would come to that conclusion.
  Again, I would say that what we should be talking about is fixing our 
broken immigration system. We need comprehensive immigration reform. 
The Senate, in a bipartisan way, stepped up to the plate and did it. It 
is about time Members of this House have the guts to bring a 
comprehensive immigration reform bill to the floor and fix our broken 
immigration system.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3003. This is 
a very positive first step toward coming to grips with an issue that 
has divided this country because it is causing great damage to so many 
Americans.
  What we are talking about is not immigrant hysteria. That type of 
mixing legal immigrants with illegal immigrants, that is the true 
racism because it hurts those people who have come here legally. Now, 
what we have got here are legal immigrants who are being cast into the 
same pot as illegals, with the opposition to this bill.
  People who are here legally understand that we need protection for 
people who are here in this country against, especially, criminals who 
come from overseas and illegal aliens who are criminals, at that.
  Working Americans of every race, religion, and ethnic group have seen 
that their families are less secure, and they are even sometimes being 
murdered by the insane lack of action on the part of our government to 
protect our citizens.
  Our number one responsibility is to make sure our own people, legal 
immigrants, and all Americans of every race, creed, and color are 
protected.
  And what do they see?
  This massive flood of illegals coming into our country, taking jobs, 
bidding down wages, lowering the education standards and the healthcare 
that most Americans rely upon.

                              {time}  1315

  No wonder the American people want action. But then, when they are 
faced with a city saying even criminals who have committed acts of 
aggression, murder, et cetera, upon our citizens, that we are going to 
let them just stay, and that there is going to be a block.
  Whose side are you on is what this amendment is all about. Are we on 
the side of the American people? Are we on the side of those victims 
who work hard every day and try to raise their families; or are we on 
the side of a massive flow of people, many of whom, and most of whom, 
are good people?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Most of the people who come here, most of the people 
flooding here, even the illegals, are basically wonderful people. But 
that doesn't mean that we can bring in more than that, 1 million--
  By the way, we need to understand, don't condemn America on its 
immigration policy. We let a million legal immigrants into our country 
every year, and that is more than the rest of the world combined. We 
can be proud of that.
  But, at the same time, we have to make sure that our people are 
protected, that they don't lose their jobs,

[[Page 10050]]

or they don't have to accept less money for the same work because you 
have got somebody here who will work for nothing.
  We want to make sure when they need their healthcare, they get their 
healthcare. That will bankrupt our system. Are we going to have a 
sanctuary healthcare system, too, so anybody in the world can come here 
and use up our scarce health dollars?
  No, it is time for us to strike a blow for the protection of 
Americans and legal immigrants of every race and religion and ethnic 
background, not to show these things. Immigrant hysteria; shame, shame, 
shame.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I include in the Record a letter to every Member of Congress from The 
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights in opposition to this 
bill; a letter to all of us from the ACLU in opposition to this bill; a 
letter to every Member of Congress from the National Task Force to End 
Sexual & Domestic Violence that is in opposition to this bill; as well 
as a letter to Members of Congress from the United States Conference of 
Catholic Bishops and Catholic Charities USA in opposition to this bill; 
and a letter from NETWORK, which is a lobby for Catholic social justice 
in opposition to this bill.

                                         The Leadership Conference


                                    on Civil and Human Rights,

                                    Washington, DC, June 27, 2017.


Oppose the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's 
                           Law'' (H.R. 3004)

       Dear Representative: On behalf of The Leadership Conference 
     on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 200 
     national advocacy organizations, I urge you to oppose H.R. 
     3003, the ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,'' and H.R. 3004, 
     ``Kate's Law.'' These two bills may sound ``tough,'' but they 
     would ultimately make the problems with our national 
     immigration system even worse than they already are.
       H.R. 3003 would unnecessarily and unwisely penalize states 
     and municipalities that are attempting to strike the delicate 
     balance between cooperating with federal immigration 
     authorities, on one hand, and respecting the constraints 
     imposed on them by the U.S. Constitution, on the other. At 
     the same time, it would do nothing to address the 
     constitutional concerns raised by the use of immigration 
     ``detainer'' requests, concerns that the Department of 
     Homeland Security (DHS) itself has recognized in the past.
       Among its provisions, H.R. 3003 would eliminate various 
     federal law enforcement grants to states and municipalities, 
     such as the ``Cops on the Beat'' program, unless 
     jurisdictions comply with all DHS detainer requests. It aims 
     to overturn local policies adopted by over 300 jurisdictions 
     across the country that have determined, as a matter of 
     constitutional law and sound public policy, including 
     community policing efforts, that they cannot hold individuals 
     beyond their release dates solely on the basis of a DHS 
     detainer request.
       The senseless and tragic 2015 killing of Kathryn Steinle in 
     San Francisco has renewed the debate over so-called 
     ``sanctuary cities.'' Yet the term suggests, incorrectly, 
     that certain states and municipalities are refusing to work 
     with federal immigration enforcement authorities. The truth 
     is that state and local law enforcement agencies (``LEAs'') 
     throughout the country already aid in the identification of 
     individuals who are subject to immigration enforcement action 
     through the sharing of fingerprints of those who are taken 
     into custody. LEAs with limited detainer policies have 
     determined, however, that they cannot continue to detain 
     individuals for immigration enforcement purposes, under the 
     Fourth Amendment and pursuant to numerous court rulings, 
     unless DHS obtains a judicial warrant, as all other law 
     enforcement agencies are required to do.
       H.R. 3003 would not address the Fourth Amendment concerns 
     raised by the use of DHS detainers. Instead, it would leave 
     many state and municipal governments in an untenable 
     position: either they must disregard their constitutional 
     responsibilities and erode the trust they have built between 
     the police and the communities they serve, or they will face 
     the loss of vital federal law enforcement funding that helps 
     them fight crime in their jurisdictions. Congress should not 
     force such an arbitrary and unwise choice on cities.
       H.R. 3004, the other immigration-related bill expected to 
     come to the House floor this week, would significantly 
     increase sentences for previously-removed individuals who 
     reenter the country. While the bill is an improvement over 
     other bills by the same name, in that it does not include 
     mandatory minimum sentencing provisions, it would still lead 
     to a likely increase in the federal prison population without 
     any tangible benefits. The Department of Justice's 
     ``Operation Streamline'' program, upon which this bill would 
     build, has already shown that increased criminal prosecutions 
     do little but waste resources while failing to deter 
     unauthorized border crossings. It should be ended, not 
     expanded.
       For these reasons, I urge you to vote against H.R. 3003 and 
     H.R. 3004.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Vanita Gupta,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____



                               American Civil Liberties Union,

                                    Washington, DC, June 27, 2017.
     Re ACLU Opposes H.R. 3003 (No Sanctuary for Criminals Act) 
         and H.R. 3004 (Kate's Law).
     Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of 
     the American Civil Liberties Union (``ACLU''), we submit this 
     letter to the House of Representatives to express our strong 
     opposition to H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, 
     and H.R. 3004, Kate's Law.


               no sanctuary for criminals act (h.r. 3003)

       H.R. 3003 conflicts with the principles of the Fourth 
     Amendment.
       H.R. 3003 defies the Fourth Amendment by amending 8 USC 
     Section 1373 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (``INA'') 
     to force localities to comply with unlawful detainer requests 
     or risk losing federal funding. This is despite the fact that 
     an ``increasing number of federal court decisions'' have held 
     that ``detainer-based detention by state and local law 
     enforcement agencies violates the Fourth Amendment,'' as 
     recognized by former Department of Homeland Security 
     Secretary Jeh Johnson in 2014.
       Disturbingly, H.R. 3003 seeks to penalize the 600+ 
     localities that abide by the Fourth Amendment. These 
     jurisdictions have recognized that by entangling local 
     authorities and federal immigration enforcement, immigration 
     detainers erode trust between immigrant communities and local 
     law enforcement. In this way, immigration detainers 
     ultimately undermine public safety, as entire communities 
     become wary of seeking assistance from police and other 
     government authorities that are supposed to provide help in 
     times of need. Thus, by forcing jurisdictions to comply with 
     unlawful detainer requests, H.R. 3003 will only make 
     communities less safe, not more.
       H.R. 3003 would also amend Section 287 of the INA to allow 
     the Department of Homeland Security (``DHS') to take custody 
     of a person being held under a detainer within 48 hours 
     (excluding weekends and holidays) ``but in no instance more 
     than 96 hours'' following the date that the individual would 
     otherwise be released from criminal custody. This, again, 
     raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns, as the Supreme 
     Court has stated that the Constitution requires a judicial 
     finding of probable cause within 48 hours of arrest. This 
     provision would disregard the Court's ruling entirely and 
     allow a local law enforcement agency to hold a person for up 
     to 7 days before requiring DHS intervention--and never 
     requiring the person be brought before a judge for a probable 
     cause hearing.
       Protection against unreasonable detention by the government 
     is the bedrock of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which 
     provides that the government cannot hold anyone in jail 
     without getting a warrant or approval from a neutral 
     magistrate. This constitutional protection applies to 
     everyone in the United States--citizen and immigrant alike.
       Immigration detainers, however, do not abide by these 
     standards. Detainers are one of the key tools that DHS uses 
     to apprehend individuals who come in contact with local and 
     state law enforcement agencies. An immigration detainer is a 
     written request from DHS to that local law enforcement 
     agency, requesting that they detain an individual for an 
     additional 48 hours after the person's release date, in order 
     to allow immigration agents extra time to decide whether to 
     take that person into custody for deportation purposes.
       DHS' use of detainers to imprison people without due 
     process, without any charges pending, and without probable 
     cause of a criminal violation flies in the face of our Fourth 
     Amendment protections. Policies that allow DHS to detain 
     people at-will are ripe for civil and human rights violations 
     and have resulted in widespread wrongful detentions, 
     including detentions of U.S. citizens. That is why many of 
     the 600+ localities targeted by H.R. 3003 have decided not to 
     execute a DHS immigration detainer request unless it is 
     accompanied by additional evidence, a determination of 
     probable cause, or a judicial warrant.
       Unfortunately, H.R. 3003 does nothing to address the 
     fundamental constitutional problems plaguing DHS's use of 
     immigration detainers. Rather than fix the constitutional 
     problems by requiring a judicial warrant, the bill 
     perpetuates the unconstitutional detainer practices and 
     forces the federal government to absorb legal liability for 
     the constitutional violations which will inevitably result. 
     This is irresponsible lawmaking. Instead of saddling 
     taxpayers with the liability

[[Page 10051]]

     the federal government will incur from Fourth Amendment 
     violations, Congress should end the use of DHS's 
     unconstitutional detainer requests.
       H.R. 3003 violates the Due Process Clause by allowing DHS 
     to detain people indefinitely without a bond hearing.
       Section 4 of H.R. 3003 radically expands our immigration 
     detention system by amending Section 236(c) of the INA to 
     authorize mandatory detention ``without time limitation.'' 
     This empowers DHS to detain countless immigrants for as long 
     as it takes to conclude removal proceedings--even if that 
     takes years--without the basic due process of a bond hearing 
     to determine if their imprisonment is even justified. This is 
     a clear constitutional violation, as the federal courts have 
     overwhelmingly held that jailing immigrants for months and 
     years without bond hearings raises serious problems under the 
     Due Process Clause.
       Although the bill claims to provide for the ``detention of 
     criminal aliens,'' it massively expands mandatory detention 
     to people with no criminal record whatsoever, including 
     immigrants who lack legal papers or who overstay a tourist 
     visa. The ``lock `em up'' approach to immigration enforcement 
     is cruel, irrational, and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court 
     has permitted brief periods of mandatory detention only in 
     cases where individuals are charged with deportation based on 
     certain criminal convictions. The Court has not endorsed the 
     mandatory lock-up of people who have never committed a crime.


                         Kate's Law (H.R. 3004)

       H.R. 3004 is piecemeal immigration enforcement that expands 
     America's federal prison population and lines the coffers of 
     private prison companies.
       Increasing the maximum sentences for illegal reentrants is 
     unnecessary, wasteful, and inhumane. H.R. 3004 envisions a 
     federal criminal justice system that prosecutes asylum-
     seekers, persons providing humanitarian assistance to 
     migrants in distress, and parents who pose no threat to 
     public safety in returning to the U.S. to reunite with 
     children who need their care (individuals with children in 
     the United States are 50 percent of those convicted of 
     illegal reentry).
       Current law already imposes a sentence of up to 20 years on 
     anyone convicted of illegally reentering the country who has 
     committed an aggravated felony. U.S. Attorneys' Offices 
     aggressively enforce these provisions. According to the U.S. 
     Sentencing Commission, immigration prosecutions account for 
     52 percent of all federal prosecutions--surpassing drugs, 
     weapons, fraud and thousands of other crimes. Nearly 99 
     percent of illegal reentry defendants are sentenced to 
     federal prison time.
       H.R. 3004 would drastically expand America's prison 
     population of nonviolent prisoners at a time when there is 
     bipartisan support to reduce the federal prison population. 
     It offends due process by cutting off all collateral attacks 
     on unjust prior deportation orders, despite the Supreme 
     Court's contrary ruling in United States v. Mendoza-Lopez. 
     Profiteering by private prison companies has been the main 
     consequence of border-crossing prosecutions, which the 
     Government Accountability Office and the DHS Office of 
     Inspector General have criticized as lacking sound deterrent 
     support.
       H.R. 3004 is an integral part of this administration's mass 
     deportation and mass incarceration agenda. Longer sentences 
     for illegal reentry are not recommended by any informed 
     federal criminal-justice stakeholders; rather they represent 
     this administration's anti-immigrant obsession and would 
     expensively expand substandard private jail contracting 
     despite the life-threatening conditions in these facilities.
       In conclusion, H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004 are fraught with 
     constitutional problems that threaten the civil and human 
     rights of our immigrant communities, undercut law 
     enforcement's ability to keep our communities safe, and would 
     balloon our federal prison population by financing private 
     prison corporations. Rather than taking a punitive approach 
     to local law enforcement agencies that are working hard to 
     balance their duties to uphold the Constitution and to keep 
     their communities safe, Congress should end DHS's 
     unconstitutional detainer practices or fix the constitutional 
     deficiencies by requiring judicial warrants for all detainer 
     requests. Congress should also repeal mandatory detention so 
     that all immigrants receive the basic due process of a bond 
     hearing and reject any attempt to unfairly imprison 
     individuals who are not a threat to public safety.
       For more information, please contact ACLU Director of 
     Immigration Policy and Campaigns.
           Sincerely,
     Faiz Shakir,
       National Political Director.
     Lorella Praeli,
       Director of Immigration Policy and Campaigns.
                                  ____

                                        National Task Force to End


                                 Sexual and Domestic Violence,

                                                    June 27, 2017.
       The National Taskforce to End Sexual and Domestic Violence 
     (NTF), comprised of national leadership organizations 
     advocating on behalf of sexual assault and domestic violence 
     victims and representing hundreds of organizations across the 
     country dedicated to ensuring all survivors of violence 
     receive the protections they deserve, write to express our 
     deep concerns about the impact that H.R. 3003, the ``No 
     Sanctuary for Criminals Act,'' and H.R. 3004, or ``Kate's 
     Law,'' will have on victims fleeing or recovering from sexual 
     assault, domestic violence, or human trafficking, and on 
     communities at large.
       This year is the twenty-third anniversary of the bipartisan 
     Violence Against Women Act (``VAWA'') which has, since it was 
     first enacted, included critical protections for immigrant 
     victims of domestic and sexual violence. H.R. 3003 and H.R. 
     3004 will have the effect of punishing immigrant survivors 
     and their children and pushing them into the shadows and into 
     danger, undermining the very purpose of VAWA. Specifically, 
     the nation's leading national organizations that address 
     domestic and sexual assault oppose H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004 
     because:
       Community trust policies are critical tools for increasing 
     community safety. Laws that seek to intertwine the federal 
     immigration and local law enforcement systems will undermine 
     the Congressional purpose of protections enacted under VAWA 
     and will have the chilling effect of pushing immigrant 
     victims into the shadows and undermining public safety. 
     Immigration enforcement must be implemented in a way that 
     supports local community policing and sustains community 
     trust in working with local law enforcement. H.R. 3003 runs 
     contrary to community policing efforts and will deter 
     immigrant domestic violence and sexual assault survivors not 
     only from reporting crimes, but also from seeking help for 
     themselves and their children. While H.R. 3003 does not 
     require that local law enforcement arrest or report immigrant 
     victims or witnesses of criminal activity, the language in 
     the bill provides no restriction prohibiting such practices.
       Perpetrators use fear of deportation as tool of abuse. 
     Local policies that minimize the intertwining of local law 
     enforcement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
     (ICE) help protect the most vulnerable victims by creating 
     trust between law enforcement and the immigrant community, 
     which in turn help protect entire communities. Abusers and 
     traffickers use the fear of deportation of their victims as a 
     tool to silence and trap them. If immigrants are afraid to 
     call the police because of fear of deportation, they become 
     more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. Not only are the 
     individual victims and their children harmed, but their fear 
     of law enforcement leads many to abstain from reporting 
     violent perpetrators or seeking protection and, as a result, 
     dangerous criminals are not identified and go unpunished.
       As VAWA recognizes, immigrant victims of violent crimes 
     often do not contact law enforcement due to fear that they 
     will be deported. Immigrants are already afraid of contacting 
     the police and HR 3003 proposes to further intertwine federal 
     immigration and local law enforcement systems will only 
     exacerbate this fear. The result is that perpetrators will be 
     able to continue to harm others, both immigrant and U.S. 
     Citizen victims alike. Since January of 2017, victim 
     advocates have been describing the immense fear expressed by 
     immigrant victims and their reluctance to reach out for help 
     from police. A recent survey of over 700 advocates and 
     attorneys at domestic violence and sexual assault programs 
     indicate that immigrant victims are expressing heightened 
     fears and concerns about immigration enforcement, with 78% of 
     advocates and attorneys reporting that victims are describing 
     fear of contacting the police; 75% of them reporting that 
     victims are afraid of going to court; and 43% reporting 
     working with immigrant victims who are choosing not to move 
     forward with criminal charges or obtaining protective orders.
       In addition, according to Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie 
     Beck, reporting of sexual assault and domestic violence among 
     Latinos has dropped significantly this year, possibly due to 
     concerns that police interaction could result in deportation. 
     According to Chief Beck, reports of sexual assault have 
     dropped 25 percent among Los Angeles' Latino population since 
     the beginning of the year compared to a three percent drop 
     among non-Latino victims. Similarly, reports of spousal abuse 
     among Latinos fell by about 10 percent among Latinos whereas 
     the decline among non-Latinos was four percent. The Houston 
     Police Department reported in April that the number of 
     Hispanics reporting rape is down 42.8 percent from last year. 
     In Denver, CO, the Denver City Attorney has reported that 
     some domestic violence victims are declining to testify in 
     court. As of late February, the City Attorney's Office had 
     dropped four cases because the victims fear that ICE officers 
     will arrest and deport them. Both the City Attorney and 
     Aurora Police Chief have spoken on the importance of having 
     trust with the immigrant community in order to maintain 
     public safety and prosecute crime.
       HR 3003 Will Unfairly Punish Entire Communities.
       H.R. 3003 punishes localities that follow Constitutional 
     guidelines and refuse to

[[Page 10052]]

     honor detainer requests that are not supported by due process 
     mandates. H.R. 3003 likely covers more than 600 jurisdictions 
     across the country, most of which do not characterize their 
     policies to follow constitutional mandates as ``sanctuary'' 
     policies. H.R. 3003 penalizes jurisdictions by eliminating 
     their access to various federal grants, including federal law 
     enforcement grants, such as the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice 
     Assistance Grant Program, and other federal grants related to 
     law enforcement or immigration, such as those that fund 
     forensic rape kit analysis. Withholding federal law 
     enforcement funding would, ironically, undermine the ability 
     of local jurisdictions to combat and prevent crime in their 
     communities.
       In addition, the fiscal impact of both H.R. 3003 and H.R. 
     3004 will result in limited federal law enforcement resources 
     being further reduced as a result of shifting funding from 
     enforcing federal criminal laws addressing violent crimes, 
     including those protecting victims of domestic violence, 
     sexual assault, and human trafficking, to the detention and 
     prosecution of many non-violent immigration law violaters.
       H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004 Will Unfairly Punish Victims.
       By greatly expanding mandatory detention and expanding 
     criminal penalties for reentry, H.R. 3003 and H.R.3004 will 
     have harsh consequences for immigrant survivors. Victims of 
     human trafficking, sexual assault, and domestic violence are 
     often at risk of being arrested and convicted. In recognition 
     of this fact, existing ICE guidance cites the example of when 
     police respond to a domestic violence call, both parties may 
     be arrested or a survivor who acted in self-defense may be 
     wrongly accused. In addition, if the abuser speaks English 
     better than the survivor, or if other language or cultural 
     barriers (or fear of retaliation from the abuser) prevent the 
     survivor from fully disclosing the abuse suffered, a survivor 
     faces charges and tremendous pressure to plead guilty 
     (without being advised about the long-term consequences) in 
     order to be released from jail and reunited with her 
     children. In addition, victims of trafficking are often 
     arrested and convicted for prostitution-related offenses. 
     These victims are often desperate to be released and possibly 
     to be reunited with their children following their arrests or 
     pending trial. These factors--combined with poor legal 
     counsel, particularly about the immigration consequences of 
     criminal pleas and convictions--have in the past and will 
     likely continue to lead to deportation of wrongly accused 
     victims who may have pled to or been unfairly convicted of 
     domestic violence charges and/or prostitution. H.R. 3003 
     imposes harsh criminal penalties and H.R. 3009 imposes 
     expanded bases for detention without consideration of 
     mitigating circumstances or humanitarian exceptions for these 
     victims.
       In addition, HR. 3004 expands the criminal consequences for 
     re-entry in the U.S. without recognizing the compelling 
     humanitarian circumstances in which victims who have been 
     previously removed return for their safety. Victims of 
     domestic and sexual violence and trafficking fleeing violence 
     in their countries of origin will be penalized for seeking 
     protection from harm. In recent years, women and children 
     fleeing rampant violence in El Salvador, Guatemala and 
     Honduras, have fled to the United States, seeking refuge. 
     Frequently, because of inadequate access to legal 
     representation, they are unable to establish their 
     eligibility for legal protections in the United States, 
     resulting in their removal. In many cases, the risk of 
     domestic violence, sexual assault, and/or human trafficking 
     in their countries of origin remain unabated and victims 
     subsequently attempt to reenter the U.S. to protect 
     themselves and their children. Other victims of domestic and 
     sexual violence and trafficking may be deported because their 
     abusers or traffickers isolate them, or prevent them from 
     obtaining lawful immigration status. They are deported, with 
     some victims having to leave their children behind in the 
     custody of their abusers or traffickers. Under H.R. 3004, 
     these victims risk harsh criminal penalties for re-entry for 
     attempting to protect themselves and their children.
       On behalf of the courageous survivors of domestic violence, 
     sexual assault, dating violence, stalking and human 
     trafficking that our organizations serve, we urge you to vote 
     against HR 3003 and 3004, and to affirm the intent and spirit 
     of VAWA by supporting strong relationships between law 
     enforcement and immigrant communities, which is critical for 
     public safety in general, and particularly essential for 
     domestic and sexual violence victims and their children.
           Sincerely,
       The National Taskforce to End Sexual and Domestic Violence 
     (www.4vawa.org).
                                  ____

                                                    June 26, 2017.
       Dear Representative: We write on behalf of the Committee on 
     Migration of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB/
     COM), and Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA) to express our 
     opposition to H.R. 3003 and H.R. 3004.
       The Catholic Church holds a strong interest in the welfare 
     of migrants and how our nation welcomes and treats them. Our 
     parishes include those with and without immigration status, 
     unfortunately some who have witnessed or been victims of 
     crime in the United States, including domestic violence, 
     armed robbery, and assault. We understand the importance of 
     fostering cooperation and information-sharing between 
     immigrant communities and local law enforcement.
       We oppose H.R. 3003 because it would impose obligations on 
     local governments that we fear--and that many of them have 
     warned--would undermine authority and discretion of local law 
     enforcement. This, in turn, would hamper the ability of local 
     law enforcement officials to apprehend criminals and ensure 
     public safety in all communities.
       Furthermore, Section 2 of H.R. 3003 would deny to 
     jurisdictions vital federal funding related to law 
     enforcement, terrorism, national security, immigration, and 
     naturalization if those jurisdictions are deemed to be non-
     compliant with H.R. 3003. The Catholic service network, 
     including Catholic Charities, works in partnership with the 
     federal government on a number of Department of Justice and 
     Department of Homeland Security initiatives, including 
     disaster response and recovery, naturalization and 
     citizenship services, and services for the immigrant, 
     including victims of human trafficking, and domestic 
     violence. These services are incredibly valuable to the 
     protection and promotion of the human person and in some 
     instances life-saving. Cutting grants related to these 
     important national objectives, or threat of such cuts, is not 
     humane or just, nor is it in our national interest.
       Also, we oppose H.R. 3004 as it would lead to an expansion 
     of incarceration and does not include adequate protections 
     for people who re-enter the U.S. for humanitarian reasons or 
     seek protection at the border. While H.R. 3004 makes notable 
     efforts to protect us from those convicted of violent 
     criminal offenses, the legislation goes far beyond this goal 
     by expanding the government's ability to prosecute illegal 
     re-entry cases and heightening the criminal penalties in 
     these cases. In an era of fiscal austerity, it is vital that 
     important judicial resources are efficiently utilized to 
     prosecute and convict the most violent offenders of violent 
     crimes. Expanding who is eligible to be prosecuted for entry 
     or re-entry as well as enhancing sentencing requirements does 
     not advance the common good nor will it ensure that 
     communities are safer. Furthermore, we are concerned that, as 
     introduced, H.R. 3004 would also prevent vulnerable asylum 
     seekers and unaccompanied children, (who have presented 
     themselves repeatedly at the U.S. border in the flight from 
     violence), from being able to access protection, and instead 
     face fines, imprisonment or both.
       We respectfully urge you to reject these bills in favor of 
     a more comprehensive and humane approach to immigration 
     reform; an approach that upholds human dignity and family 
     unity and places a greater emphasis on balancing the needs 
     and rights of immigrants with our nation's best interests and 
     security.
       The United States has a long and proud history of 
     leadership in welcoming newcomers regardless of their 
     circumstances and promoting the common good. We stand ready 
     to work with you on legislation that more closely adheres to 
     this tradition and appreciate your serious consideration of 
     our views in this regard.
           Sincerely,
     Most Rev. Joe Vasquez,
       Bishop of Austin, Chairman, USCCB Committee on Migration.
     Sr. Donna Markham, OP, PhD,
       President & CEO, Catholic Charities USA.
                                  ____

                                                    June 27, 2017.
       Dear Representative McGovern: NETWORK Lobby for Catholic 
     Social Justice stands in strong opposition to the ``No 
     Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 3003) and ``Kate's Law'' 
     (H.R. 3004) to be considered this week by the House of 
     Representatives. We urge Congress to reject these bills. In a 
     country that prides itself on being the land of welcome and 
     opportunity, we must ensure that our immigration laws reflect 
     our shared values.
       As Congress continues to delay comprehensive immigration 
     reform and a permanent solution for the nation's 11 million 
     undocumented immigrants, we are left with the status quo--an 
     enforcement-only approach that tears apart families and keeps 
     people in the shadows. Despite the gridlock in Congress, 
     localities across the country still have the responsibility 
     to uphold safety and peace in their communities. To fulfill 
     this goal, local police and residents have fostered mutual 
     trust to root out crime and promote public safety, 
     encouraging community members to cooperate with local 
     authorities. The ``No Sanctuary for Criminals Act'' (H.R. 
     3003) does nothing to promote public safety and instead will 
     make communities more dangerous while striking fear in the 
     hearts of our immigrant families.
       Likewise, ``Kate's Law'' (H.R. 3004) would criminalize 
     immigrants who simply want an opportunity to succeed in the 
     United States,

[[Page 10053]]

     and often are simply trying to be reunited with their family. 
     Punishing immigrants for wanting to provide for their 
     families with fines and imprisonment is harsh and cruel--we, 
     as a nation, are called to be better than that. Again, we ask 
     Congress to abandon the ``enforcement first'' policies that 
     have been the de facto U.S. strategy for nearly thirty years, 
     yielding too many costs and too few results. Our antiquated 
     system that does not accommodate the migration realities we 
     face in our nation today does not serve our national 
     interests and does not respect the basic human rights of 
     migrants who come to this nation fleeing persecution or in 
     search of employment for themselves and better living 
     conditions for their children.
       Pope Francis cautions that ``migrants and refugees are not 
     pawns on the chessboard of humanity'' and he asks political 
     leaders to create a new system, one that ``calls for 
     international cooperation and a spirit of profound solidarity 
     and compassion.'' This is a holy call to embrace hope over 
     fear. Congress should recognize the God-given humanity of all 
     individuals and uphold our sacred call to love our neighbor 
     and welcome the stranger in our midst. Any action that 
     further militarizes our borders, criminalizes assistance to 
     immigrant communities, or weakens legal protection of 
     refugees is neither just nor compatible with the values that 
     we, as Americans, strive to uphold.
           Sincerely,

                                     Sr. Simone Campbell, SSS,

                                               Executive Director,
                        NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I, again, would simply say that if we 
really want to do something about immigration, we ought to come 
together, like the Senate did not long ago, and pass comprehensive 
immigration reform. But, apparently, that is not in the DNA of the 
current leadership of this House.
  Instead, we have bills that demagogue the immigration issue, that 
demean immigrants, that cause hysteria, and I find that very 
unfortunate.
  This bill is a bad idea. It falls in the same category as that other 
bad, stupid idea of building a wall across our country.
  What we ought to be doing is serious legislating, enough demagoguing, 
and let's get back to doing the people's business, and that includes 
comprehensive immigration reform.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said, we need to fix our immigration laws. When a 
mother in the Philippines has to wait 25 years or more for a visa to 
reunite with her son in the United States, is that system working? No.
  To lose the entire childhood and young adulthood of your son? What 
mother wouldn't try to enter the United States some other way, in fact, 
any way that she could in order to be with her child?
  When your daughter is threatened with rape and murder if she doesn't 
become a sexual slave to gang members; when your son and the entire 
family is threatened with death if the boy doesn't join the gangs, 
wouldn't you run away and try to find safety someplace else?
  And when the family arrives at the U.S. border and they actively seek 
out the U.S. Border Patrol and voluntarily surrender to them and ask 
for safe refuge and asylum, is that really entering our borders 
illegally?
  You know, when you have been an upstanding member of the community 
for 10, 15, 20 years or more in the United States, and you get pulled 
over because the tags have expired on your car, or your license, do you 
really deserve to be deported, to tear apart your family, to leave 
behind the businesses that you have spent a lifetime creating?
  And does anyone in this Chamber honestly think that if this father or 
mother is deported, that they won't do everything they can to try to 
come back to be with their kids?
  I mean, these are real stories. It is not fiction. They are not 
fantasies. It is real. And if you listened to people in your community, 
you would know these stories.
  If you paid attention to your local police, you would know why it is 
so damaging to turn them in to ICE, because they rely on these 
community members to inform them of criminal activities in their 
community. The police don't want to do what you are asking them to do. 
Why would you force this on them? And why would you punish them by 
taking away essential Federal funding to help them protect the citizens 
of this country?
  This is a bad idea. I guess, maybe it is a good press release. Maybe 
Steve Bannon thinks it is a good idea. Maybe it is a good sound bite 
for Trump. Who knows what the rationale behind this is. But it is not 
sensible. It is not thoughtful.
  So if you want to get serious about these issues, you know, come 
together, like the Senate did, in a bipartisan way, and come up with 
comprehensive immigration reform. That is our duty. That is our job, as 
Members of Congress, not this garbage. This is a waste of time. This is 
an insult to the American people. We ought to be able to do better.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this. I urge them to 
defeat the previous question so we can have a debate and vote on 
whether or not to increase the minimum wage to $15 to give people a 
raise. Again, we have to do that because this House is being so tightly 
controlled that you can't get anything to the floor.
  I would remind my colleagues that the underlying bill that we are 
talking about here today on immigration is under a closed rule. We will 
have another closed rule tomorrow. So much for democracy. So much for 
deliberative process. So much for openness. There is no such thing 
here. I mean, the Rules Committee has become a place where democracy 
goes to die, where everything gets shut down.
  We need to do better. This process stinks, and this bill is lousy. I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, vote ``no'' 
on the rule, and if it gets to the point we have to debate this, vote 
``no'' on the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do believe that in just a little bit we will be 
debating this bill. I do believe in just a short time it will pass.
  I think what was very interesting, Mr. Speaker, is the frustrations 
of my friend, and I believe they are true frustrations, and the stories 
of folks coming from terrible places around the world wanting to get 
here. We are the light on a hill. We are the ones that everybody wants 
to come to. I grant you that.
  But I do have a question. For these folks who are leaving disaster, 
places in which law and order are not enforced, in which people are 
dying, and they are striving to get someplace else, why in the world 
would we want to get to here to find that we have a situation in which 
local law enforcement can sort of decide what they want to do, where 
law and order is not followed?
  You are leaving one area to get to an area in which what they say is 
law and order is what is needed and what is followed and why they come 
here, but yet we are saying no.
  I think it has also been, possibly, Mr. Speaker, a vast 
mischaracterization to say that all police are against this. In fact, 
if we have seen, there was 200 that was identified earlier, the vast 
majority of police departments in this country uphold the law. So let's 
don't make a blanket assessment of police here.
  I think it is just an interesting development here. I think you can 
talk about laws. You can like laws, you cannot like laws, you can do 
something about immigration.
  But I do think we also need to address something else. It wasn't a 
part of this bill, but we wanted to make it a part of this bill, and 
that is comprehensive immigration reform.
  I do agree with my friend. There needs to be immigration reform. I 
think it needs to start with security and safety and protection. It 
needs to start with actually enforcing law, and then begin the 
foundation of finding a way to get workers here--our guest worker 
program, our ag worker program, the things that we need to make our 
expansion so that we do it properly. I agree completely.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I do find it has been amazing here because, just in 
the context of this debate, these were words that were used: We're 
demagoguing this issue. We didn't have the guts to address this issue. 
Our DNA of leadership is to obstruct or to not bring this forward.

[[Page 10054]]

  Well, I think the one thing that I do need to remind is, this body, 
Mr. Speaker, if you are very familiar with this, over the last few 
weeks, we have been dealing with a very difficult issue--we passed it 
out of the House--that is healthcare, which was passed when this body 
was filled in a majority of a different party, my friends across the 
aisle, when they had, at times, filibuster-proof majorities.
  They worked to pass healthcare. They worked to pass Dodd-Frank. They 
worked to pass their priorities.
  My interesting question is, they did not work to pass comprehensive 
immigration reform. I am not sure why now we decide that it is such 
their issue that they are now blaming us, many of us who want to find a 
way forward.
  But I think the answer is plain and obvious in history. They chose 
not to do it. I repeat, they chose not to do it.
  So I think in the discussion of this battle, we will continue these 
discussions. We will continue to have differences of opinion. I think 
it is sort of amazing though that we do have to have a discussion here 
on telling police to enforce the law and work out the details as we go, 
work out what is in this bill.
  But it also is about priorities, Mr. Speaker. For those of us who 
have had to look at the tragedies left behind as a result of some of 
these decisions that they have made to ``better'' their community, the 
deaths, the tragedies, then it is a pretty interesting choice. Is the 
death more important or less important than your policy?
  All we are simply saying is: just don't take the money. Look at it 
from that perspective.
  And we will continue to have these debates. My friend and I will 
continue to be passionately different on this, and that is okay. That 
is what this floor is for because, at the end of the day, we are going 
to have a vote. One side is going to win and one side is going to lose 
in this vote. And the debate is going to happen, and the bill is going 
to come forward. There will be another vote. And then it will go to the 
Senate.
  I disagree with my friend from Massachusetts, respect his opinion, 
but, in this case, I believe the debate is fairly clear to most 
Americans. All we are asking is, and what the current law already 
states, follow the rules. And all we are simply saying is, follow the 
rules.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 414 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     15) to provide for increases in the Federal minimum wage, and 
     for other purposes. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and 
     reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then 
     on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately 
     after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of 
     rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 15.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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 ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on:
  Adoption of the resolution, if ordered; and
  Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235, 
nays 190, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 331]

                               YEAS--235

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger

[[Page 10055]]


     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--190

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Comstock
     Cummings
     Long
     Napolitano
     Pelosi
     Renacci
     Scalise
     Stivers

                              {time}  1349

  Mr. TAKANO changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. 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 235, 
noes 190, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 332]

                               AYES--235

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--190

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz

[[Page 10056]]


     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Collins (NY)
     Cummings
     Long
     Napolitano
     Renacci
     Sanchez
     Scalise
     Stivers

                              {time}  1357

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 332, providing for 
consideration of H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act I was 
unavoidably detained and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``no.''


                          personal explanation

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No. 
331 and 332 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Motion on Ordering the 
Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3003. 
I would have also voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 414--Rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 3003--No Sanctuary for Criminals Act.

                          ____________________